Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (10685)	6/7/1999 4:10:00 AM
From: FR1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

It only talks about non-discriminatory charges If 2 people disagree over a charge, which one has the non-discriminatory charge (and who decides)? We are just going to have to disagree. I don't understand why you do not see this. It does not seem to me that there is any argument. Maybe I am missing it all and you can correct me. One last attempt: According to Portland, T must allow open access. Portland does recognize there will probably be financial disputes about how much T can charge AOL. Here it is in black and white: defendants City and County submit this supplemental memorandum (a) to describe how they will resolve financial and technological disputes as to ATT/TCI's compliance with the "open access" provision.. You must agree that the above statement says Portland expects there will be arguments over the price T will charge AOL for open access and Portland has a method to handle these disputes. If you don't see that stop reading. Our conversation is over. I won't bring it up again. ************************ I don't think anybody in their right mind thinks AOL and T will agree on a price. In the case of disputes, Portland clearly states that it (Portland) will decide what amount of money is fair for T to charge AOL: existing administrative procedures and franchise provisions will permit the City and County to determine* whether a particular proposed arrangement is, or is not, non-discriminatory.* Upon written request or its own motion, the MHCRC may commence a formal, quasi-adjudicatory hearing to "enforc[e] any contract or franchise requirement." I am not implying anything so far. I am not assuming anything so far. I am simply reading the rules as written in the Portland brief. Portland has now said it has the legal authority, in the case of disputes, to decide the rates T can charge AOL. If you don't agree with this tell me why. ************************ You can call these rates anything you want. Make up a word. I called them wholesale rates because AOL will use these rates in computing what they can charge their end subscribers. Portland contends that although Portland may regulate the rates T can charge AOL, they are not violating any FCC regulation because they are not regulating rates charged to end subscribers. Portland goes over this point twice in the brief because they know they are not allowed to regulate rates to end subscribers. T disagrees. T says that if you regulate the rates T can charge AOL you directly affect the rates AOL can charge end subscribers. You be the judge. ************************