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: Vendit™ who wrote (21861)	6/14/1999 6:57:00 AM
From: OVETUS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41369

G. Soros rumored to have sold short heavily all nets.... since a month ago.........................but the problem is that he still is not covering , so be prepared for more blood in the nets, and AOL is included and those shorts sells. bad omen for longs, myself included. so let's hang on.

To: Vendit™ who wrote (21861)	6/14/1999 8:01:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 41369

"Congressman AOL" holds court on Net policy By Peter D. Henig Redherring.com June 11, 1999 Representative Rick Boucher (D: Virginia) has passion. That's not a bad thing, considering today's apathetic expectations of Congress. But Mr. Boucher is also passionate about something most politicians know little about: the Internet. The author of the Internet Growth and Development Act, which goes before the full House Judiciary Committee on June 30, is leading the charge on hot Internet issues like open access for high-speed cable bandwidth, digital signatures, Web site privacy policies, greater deployment of DSL, and anti-spam regulation. We discussed legislative issues, the perception that he's "Congressman AOL," and other topics with Mr. Boucher. NET-SIDE CHAT Before we get deep into it, can you offer up what you see as the role of government, in broad terms, when it comes to Internet policy? The guiding principle for Congress on Internet policy should be that the old regime for telecom policy doesn't get transported into new media; that we should encourage competition and adopt a laissez-faire policy. But government has always had a role in ensuring quality of access and fair play, and that should still apply. For example, I think it's very unfair, and contrary to public policy, to allow large companies with substantial market power to leverage their dominance in an unfair way. Should cable systems be able to leverage their service to also include cable access? Like AT&T (NYSE: T)? Yes, exactly like AT&T. Well, before we go there, what would you deem as the most significant Internet legislation already passed? I would argue that we haven't done anything significant yet! The boldest attempt was the Internet Decency Act, but that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under First Amendment issues ... which it should have. And the legislation you're proposing? We're proposing the first comprehensive legislative treatment of the Internet [the Internet Growth and Development Act]. We propose that cable platforms be open; that there be greater deployment of broadband by encouraging the RBOCs [regional Bell operating companies] to deploy DSL in return for deregulation of DSL in the future; that ISPs have a legal standing to fight spam; that Web sites be required to publish privacy guidelines; and that digital signatures be required for all commercial transactions. But none of this is regulatory. How so? It seems highly regulatory. No, in my mind regulatory implies imposing a price, or a price deterrent, on a market. This legislation does not do that. And what do you think the chances are of this non-regulation making it through Congress? The members are still learning about the Internet. There's a large coalition supporting it, including the telecom industry and the Internet service providers. But probably not AT&T? AT&T would oppose elements of our bill, but I don't think they'd oppose all of it. I don't think empowering ISPs to fight spam would be controversial. But AT&T should be concerned about the Oregon ruling, in your opinion? [A District judge has just ruled in favor of a Portland, Oregon municipality's right to restrict AT&T from offering cable Internet service if it requires that consumers must exclusively use Excite/@Home as their provider.] Yes, AT&T is going to be concerned about that ruling, because it opens the door for there to be open access to its platform. But isn't this where law and reality collide? Realistically, there's not enough bandwidth within even updated cable systems to allow for open and equitable access to 5,000 ISPs. Why should Ma Bell foot the bill for the upgrades? At most you may be talking about three or four or five ISPs. But even if you did require open access, AT&T could still charge what it wants to any ISP who wants access, thereby self-regulating the ISPs back out of access by pricing them out of the market. Well, then there ought to be some reasonable measure as to what that carrier could charge for the use of its platform. One last question. Do you find it difficult to plead your case and lead this charge, on the open access issue in particular, when you're a Congressman from Virginia? Some have even dubbed you "Congressman AOL." AOL (NYSE: AOL) is not in my Congressional district. In fact, AOL is at the farthest end of the State of Virginia from my district. I'm not AOL's Congressman. I do, however, have 25 ISPs in my district, and they do care about this issue, because if they don't, they're going to get killed. EPILOGUE Reuters has just reported that GTE (NYSE: GTE) and America Online are expected to organize a high-profile demonstration next week to prove that giving Internet service providers access to cable networks is both possible and practical. This demonstration is intended to undercut arguments by AT&T and other cable companies, which claim that offering access to ISPs through the cable networks is technically infeasible. Mr. Boucher has said he intends to participate in an event introducing the demonstration next week. redherring.com