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: David E. Taylor who wrote (22575)	6/16/1999 10:01:00 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Respond to of 41369

>>I think it's far preferable that AT&T recognize this and get on with cutting business deals, but I guess they have to play out the appeal process on the Portland decision first. It looks as if T has gained a powerful ally: U.S. FCC head opposes local rules on cable Internet biz.yahoo.com I expected this to hurt aol today, but it doesn't appear the market has a lot of respect for Kennard :-). Frank

To: David E. Taylor who wrote (22575)	6/16/1999 10:04:00 AM
From: Tom Tallant	Respond to of 41369

David, Very well put. Best, Tom

To: David E. Taylor who wrote (22575)	6/16/1999 9:42:00 PM
From: KailuaBoy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 41369

David T., > I think you're jumping to some unwarranted conclusions: >(1) Where did you get the idea that AOL wants a free ride on AT&T's >cable systems? AOL isn't getting a free ride from the telcos for >ADSL, just a negotiated cut of the monthly access charges. If they >get cable access, they'll assuredly cut deals with AT&T et al along >the same lines. That's not "welfare", just a business deal that >benefits both parties. ATHM isn't getting a free ride with the cable >companies and neither will anyone else. AOL is attempting to mandate a business deal instead of taking the risk/reward train. If they want to do a business deal then they should do a business deal. I believe that AOL is attempting to preserve the status quo because it serves their near-term goals. AOL has the customers and instead of investing in innovation Case chooses to lobby to either "mandate" a business deal or stall broadband. Either way works for the status quo. It's a fools game. The hamster will run faster and faster because of quarterly demands. Customers will walk. >(2) What do expect AOL/Case to do in the face of AT&T's announced >intentions to dominate the cable business with a monopoly of bundled >services and exclude other ISP's and content providers like AOL? Sure >AOL and others will recruit whatever political help they can get. >AT&T and the cable industry clearly have gained the ear of the FCC >Chairman, and they have their lobbyists and allies in DC as well. T has chosen to compete. They are up to their ears in debt, rolling the dice on cable because they have to. To do nothing would be not to fail but to fade. FCC will not hinder their efforts regardless of who is at the helm. I'm not suggesting that AOL not lobby. I'm suggesting that Case is backing up because of near-term pressures when he should move forward. >(3) AOL is not in the business of building telephone and cable >infrastructure, and IMO, they'd be nuts to even consider it. You seem >to hold the opinion that only those willing to invest in the cable >infrastructure should be allowed to use it. You need to think of the >internet as a utility, with suppliers who have the commodity >(content) that people want, distributors who can deliver that >commodity nationwide, and local distributors who take the supply and >deliver it to the end users. If you look at the internet in this way, >you'll see that there's room for all kinds of businesses with >an emphasis in any one or all parts of it. This is silly. Why do I "need to think of the internet as a utility"? You speak of the evils of the "cable monopolies" then implore me to think of the internet as a utility? You are delusional. Because this way of thinking supports your objectives? It is what it is. Risk = Reward or bankruptcy. >In the current deregulatory climate, I just don't see AT&T or any >other company being allowed to gain a monopoly of the cable part of >the delivery system. That's why I've said before that I think it's >far preferable that AT&T recognize this and get on with cutting >business deals, but I guess they have to play out the appeal process >on the Portland decision first. Who should T cut business deals with? 30,000 ISP's? Your ISP? Let me ask you this: With cable broadband you can set your browser to www.aol.com once and never see the @Home page. Ever. With AOL how many POP-up pages of crap do I have to sift through to get to the @Home content? How do I set my browser so that I never have to see them? Just like you can't delete the Microsoft Mail Inbox ICON from your desktop...you can't escape them. KB