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: Lynn Heffelfinger who wrote (11101)	6/12/1999 4:48:00 AM
From: E. Davies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Lynn, Wow. You put that well. Lets see what clarifications come in and maybe you could rewrite it as a post for all to remember. My few comments as I understand it (corrections welcome!): as owner of the backbone from headend thru regional networks, data centers, and an ATM network I believe the word "backbone" is not usually meant to mean the connections to the headend. It is more meant to imply connections between data centers. The reason I bring up this distinction is that ISP's do not necessarily need to lease the "backbone", but only the lines to the headends. Many broadband ISP's simply connect to the "Internet" for long distance transport and don't have a national backbone of their own. Presumably AOL is the only narrowband ISP with pockets deep enough to build their own private national backbone. Thats not necessarily a good presumtion exactly. AOL does not own its networks anymore, they contract it out to WCOM. There are several major telecom companies with the resources and the skill to do what ATHM does, WCOM being the best example. They are not ISP's (maybe some are), but they could be hired by the ISP's for the job. AOL, pending appeal, has won the right to provide access over the last mile. This I consider inaccurate. AOL was not involved in the Portland case at all. What the judge decided was that Portland had the right to not use AT&T cable TV if AT&T wont make internet access "open" if and when they provide it. AT&T can simply never provide broadband internet to Portland and the issue is moot. Many many ISP's would want in on the game. More than the 10 that Ahhaha thinks the system could support. AOL would have to build a private broadband network from scratch from headend to ATM backbone to avoid paying a toll. Darn interesting point. ATHM does not have to lease to AOL or anyone else. Make them build it themselves. Either they cant do it and ATHM keeps away the competition or they can and ATHM loses the business of providing transport. Do you think ATHM will keep this 'toll' or split it with AT&T? My feeling is the entire fee goes to ATHM because they provide the broadband service and simply lease a powerful T backbone. Obviously AT&T will continue to get its "toll" for access to the local wires. Most of the $ goes to AT&T, just like it always has. Who actually pays it to them doesn't matter much. And ATHM still has exclusive contracts around the world unaffected by this ruling. Interestingly enough, open access is already mandated in Canada. For some reason there have been no takers. I'd love to know why. Eric

To: Lynn Heffelfinger who wrote (11101)	6/12/1999 6:21:00 AM
From: Hiram Walker	Respond to of 29970

Must Read Synopsis of the Portland Ruling* multichannel.com T is gonna take this ruling to the limit. Portland may never get high speed access. T is gonna pull out all the stops. Panner is totally wrong,as have been other judges interpreting the Telecom Act of 96. This ruling will be reversed or obliterated. Hiram

To: Lynn Heffelfinger who wrote (11101)	6/12/1999 8:16:00 AM
From: Jan Garrity Allen	Respond to of 29970

This is a core holding and will be on the TV where millions upon millions will log on!! I am accumulating much more at this point!!<<:-)))))))

To: Lynn Heffelfinger who wrote (11101)	6/12/1999 5:10:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 29970

Is it appropriate to conceptualize ATHM, in general terms, as two loosely separate entities, as both an bb ISP and as an owner of a high-speed private national backbone. The only adjustment here is that the company enjoys the right of ownership through leasing arrangements on the backbone. This is better than direct ownership, since it provides flexibility with some protection from the rising maintenance overhead of ownership and vulnerability to technological obsolescence. In other words, thinking of them as an ISP from the consumer to the headend over HFC cable You should know that "ISP" so far has meant a reseller of copper telephone line bandwidth. They are only a packager, not a physical delivery. The physical side is handled by partners like Sprint or the RBOCs. In contrast, ATHM is more physical. Is this significant? Not with respect to what ISPs are doing in their business models. The physical side providers are benefiting from the relationship they have so they would like to see their ISPs prosper. So, if ATHM loses their supposedly 'exclusive' rights over the last mile to the consumer (and there are multiple loopholes and exceptions to this exclusiveness outlined in the annual report), then formerly narrowband ISP's will be able to lease a ride through ATHM's private backbone to the last mile where they will then perform their broadband ISP services. The conclusion is independent of the premise. They are two different issues, but it is the case that FCC rulings or Supreme Court decisions could result over time in Cable Partner MSOs choosing another company to deliver the intermediate segment. Your conclusion is unclear because no one knows whether co-mingling could or should take place on the intermediate segment, in the last mile, or not at all. The general opinion is that "open access" could not even begin to be tried until there is a viable cable system. This is an advantage T has and one they should exploit simply because the other side is already dividing a spoil which doesn't yet exist. We are discussing a hypothetical future and so you have to take it all with a grain fo salt. Meanwhile T and its partners have to create this system. It won't get done if everyone is in court. Presumably AOL is the only narrowband ISP with pockets deep enough to build their own private national backbone. This is an erroneous assumption. You can't make something happen by throwing ever greater quantities of money at it. AOL would have to partner or form a consortium of big players to do anything near what T, the MSOs, and ATHM are attempting. Then there is lead time and reproducing all the information already got by ATHM in its various trials. Most of the major MSOs are part of the ATHM Cable Partners group and as seen in the Comcast battle, as disgruntled they may be with the group, they are inclined to stay with it. ATHM has patented their intermediate segment model and though that may not be all that significant, it is a roadblock to copycat entry. As I mentioned above AOL is a packager, not a network company. This gives ATHM an advantage. AOL, pending appeal, has won the right to provide access over the last mile. No, this is only what may be implied even outside of appeal. Government can't confiscate property without due compensation. What is the expected revenue over the assessable lifetime of a future cable network? Local government can't take what doesn't exist or what already resides under previous agreement. And it seems readily apparent, but just to be absolutely clear, AOL has NOT also won the right to lease privately-owned OC-48 channels from AT&T or to use ATHM's private network, correct?? Totally correct. There is no way that that is going to happen. You don't win a right to force someone to lease to you. No one is required to lease. The lessor gives the lessee the opportunity to strike a lease. I'm sure there are jurists who disagree with me, but it is a point of politics more than a point of law. I might add as much as I don't like MSFT, I also don't like the way the government pursues their case by claiming MSFT practices "unfair competition". That's an oxymoronic statement from the leftover leftist neanderthals still in government. AOL would have to build a private broadband network from scratch from headend to ATM backbone to avoid paying a toll. There are many ways to do high speed Internet like the interim solution of DSL. AOL could do quite well by pursuing this and by letting T struggle with the ghastly mess that is cable. There are other solutions coming too in the fixed or land based wireless departments. Cable still has the advantage and it will be the big thing when it comes to BB service to the home. AOL may transform themselves into a different beast altogether and never be involved in BB. AOL could go on to tremendous and ever growing success by doing other things. Can you believe that in the '60s it was asserted that tv telephone would supplant what we use today? It's almost 2001 and that junk Ma Bell videophone is thankfully unhatched. And AOL's payment for the right to ride the pipes will go to ATHM and not to AT&T, because although AT&T actually owns the OC-48 backbone, ATHM owns the broadband service itself... If AOL were to access ATHM's portion of the segment they would have to pay rent. If they came in at the headend, they would have to pay rent to the MSO. Users of facilities must assist in paying to maintain them. Do you think ATHM will keep this 'toll' or split it with AT&T? This "toll" is not all that profound and T is not a direct beneficiary unless access comes on an MSO owned by T like TCI. T does have a big chunk of ATHM stock, so they indirectly benefit, but there is no direct "splitting". This isn't a family, nor a socialism. What was your question?