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 : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (20724)	6/7/1999 3:52:00 PM
From: Davyne Dial	Respond to of 41369

Back when ATT had a monopoly on 800 numbers I paid $200.00, to set up a number. When I moved from New Orleans to North Carolina, I had to pay another $200.00. That was in '89. About 1991, ATT lost the monopoly and I switched to another 800 service, set up was about $15.00 bucks. And usage charges were cheaper. Moral, if ATT can get away with it they will gouge to the hilt!

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (20724)	6/7/1999 4:04:00 PM
From: David E. Taylor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41369

Cicconi also said that the Portland consumers will be the big losers, because if this decision stands, their only choice for broadband access would be US West, which according to him currently has a monopoly in Portland. This odd statement implies that if the ruling stands, AT&T will retaliate by not providing cable access in Portland. The logical result of this AT&T posture if the Portland ruling is upheld and repeated elsewhere is that AT&T's expensive cable infrastructure investment will not be put to any broadband use. IMO, this is all just bluster and posturing by AT&T. The writing is on the wall, and the sooner they get a deal struck with AOL the better. David T.