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 : IATV-ACTV Digital Convergence Software-HyperTV -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: art slott who wrote (5066)	6/18/1999 9:51:00 AM
From: Craig Jacobs	Respond to of 13157

Great Insight in this article, From the East back to reality. Cable's God-given Pipe June 17, 1999 Open up the cable network, I dare you. Back in 1992, the FCC tried to make cable companies lower their rates. After a few years of high-pitched whining, the cable companies whittled down "basic cable" to include MTV and the Sphincter Channel, pushing all the 500 channels you wanted onto pricey "a la carte" menus. Now there's some governmental brawn for you. Then the cable industry tried to get a little discipline on the service side, promising it would offer $20 to customers inconvenienced by tardy cable repair crews. They might as well have been airbrushing photos of a plane wreck. Consumers became slightly less annoyed at service, while still pissed off that almost all markets have a single cable provider. Now, just as cable is looking at an alternate revenue source in Internet access (which, by the way, fires up cable moguls more than the Romance Channel), AOL and GTE are trying to prove they can jerry-rig cable networks easily for access by alternate ISPs. You think Michael Armstrong slapped a ring on TCI's chubby fingers so AOL could flip a switch and get a cable-modem quickie? Fat chance. FCC Chief William Kennard is scrambling to deal with the issue, brought to a head by a bunch of plucky local-government types in Portland, Ore., who want any ISP to offer them Internet access over cable modems. Forget the @Home Network, these companies want to consider AT&T's network a god-given pipe. Like Pacific Bell's local connection, why shouldn't AT&T's equipment be ours? Let me count the ways. First, let me say that I fully understand that cable companies aren't angels. Their networks are old. It's hard to get what you want, and you're always hearing about someone who lives 50 miles from you who has the wonderful access they need. Next, though, I'll add that they weren't created through the privatization of a government-born, -bred and -fattened enterprise. You say the Bells' local access has to be opened up, well, let's get cable in the same swipe. Not so fast. TCI and Time Warner snapped up their networks through acquisitions of well "clustered" systems. They weren't created out of the 1984 Ma Bell break up. You'd be stretching it to say they are public property--unless you surmise that the American public paid for the pipes through the aftermath of the junk bond bailout, in that junk bonds served as one good way to finance cable expansion in the late '70s and early '80s. Call me the bad guy if you want. If you want to charge cable companies with anti-competitive monopoly behavior, that's one thing. But asking them to open up their networks ... call me a corporate stool pigeon, but why should they? I suppose local governments gave cable companies right of way and thereby the privilege of ripping up our sidewalks or erecting poles so they could string the physical wires along. Should satellites be forced to open up space for competitors because they fly through the public air? Same would go for wireless networks, I guess. If the FCC wants to do this to stretch its atrophying wings, I suppose it can try. But beyond the "why" question is the "how" question. Look how well the Bells have responded to telecom deregulation--with reticence and sluggishness. Imagine the putrid attitude cable would emanate. It's a dirty job, but does somebody have to do it? Tish Williams is senior writer/editor at UPSIDE.

To: art slott who wrote (5066)	6/18/1999 10:11:00 AM
From: anthony karpati	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13157

Art, most of us are upset over what happened this past week, but I believe we will rebound. Hopefully, Samuels learned something from this.

To: art slott who wrote (5066)	6/18/1999 10:13:00 AM
From: Mike Fredericks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13157

Samuels has caused me too lose my trust in the company. Art- When some of us were saying not-so-nice things about management (regarding lack of releases and the compensation plan) you stood up stiff and defended the company regardless of what was said. Now you've suddenly lost trust in the company. Is this solely due to Samuels selling his stock right before the cable show or is there something else? You've been one of the biggest proponents of IATV on this thread, now for you to say that you're selling your holdings because you've lost trust in the company... that's big. If you could give us a more detailed explanation I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, -Mike