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 : AT&T -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: polarisnh who wrote (2550)	6/9/1999 1:25:00 PM
From: Jenne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4298

.. and what about ATHM?

To: polarisnh who wrote (2550)	6/9/1999 1:27:00 PM
From: P.T.Burnem	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4298

Do you really think that AOL and all other ISPs are going to ride for free on a carrier's backbone? Of course they will pay and they know it! That ruling will get overturned because it is wrong! AT&T is more than happy to provide bandwidth to anybody who is willing to pay a reasonable price. Selling bandwidth is what they should be doing rather then trying to monopolize access to the local loop. The ruling is about "open access", not "free access". The problem for T is that it owns a majority stake in ATHM valued - until recently - as a monopoly cable ISP.

To: polarisnh who wrote (2550)	6/9/1999 1:52:00 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 4298

PT: The issue the ruling addressed was not free open access, but whether the local franchise authority has the right to compel open access & therefore dictate what T could charge ISPs for use of its cable modem platform. T obviously has no problem with providing access to other providers. Michael Armstrong has gone on record stating he would like nothing more than to sit down with Steve Case & negotiate a deal to carry AOL on its platform. Where T & the local franchise authority differ is the power to dictate pricing. The judge knows his ruling will be appealed. His purpose was to bring the issue of open access to the forefront because of reluctance by the FCC to adopt some form of affirmative policy on this area. Now the issue is within the purview of the courts since there is now a real case or controversy. This is how the law & the courts work. IMHO, the summary judgment ruling on this matter is fundamentally flawed. But what better way for the judge to quickly kick the matter up to the appellate level where it should be addressed.