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: ahhaha who wrote (11471)	6/19/1999 12:35:00 AM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

Aren't you saying the same thing as FCC Chairman William E. Kennard? [Kennard] It is the FCC's job to implement and cultivate this competitive environment; to open up previously-closed marketplaces to competitors; and to set the framework for a vigorous competition. [Kennard]Here is my vision for broadband in America. Multiple broadband pipes serving America's homes. At least four or five facilities-based competitors. Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), cable modem, terrestrial wireless, and satellite. [Kennard - referring to the cable operators]The ball is in your court. And if you act responsibly, consumers will get broadband and that broadband pipe will follow the open tradition of the Internet. I was glad to hear yesterday that Michael Armstrong said that he is committed to this open tradition, both with respect to conduit and content. We are not regulating.But we are watching.

To: ahhaha who wrote (11471)	6/19/1999 1:00:00 AM
From: gpowell	Respond to of 29970

Assuming cable is open to more than one ISP and ATHM is free to pursue DSL and wireless services isn't this the best scenario for ATHM's continued growth? Rather than being limited by the rather slow cable subscriber growth rate. So is this a battle? No. It's a transistion. A growing subset of net users want BB services; the company which is best prepared to offer the BB services that the public wants will benifit. This is the essence of competition.

To: ahhaha who wrote (11471)	6/19/1999 5:22:00 AM
From: E. Davies	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

T wants ATHM carried exclusively on all cable MSOs. That isn't a competitive market Even in a situation that monolithic there still still should be enough competition to prevent stagnation. People seem to forget that the market segment is high speed internet, not cable internet. Being worried about an ATHM monopoly is like being worried about an AAPL monopoly. Apple has a monopoly over Mac-Os computers, do they need to be forced to open their manufacturing facilites to produce Mac clones The two markets compete through technological change, but the companies within these two markets only compete with each other on a basis of quality and cost of service and content What is that if not competition? quality-cost-content. What else is there worth competing about? In reality two cable ISP's such as RR and @home would probably Copper does compete with cable. So will wireless, and maybe satellite or even power line access. Then of course there is fiber. Three different methods of delivery should be Bork test enough. I think competition between different technologies will create more drive to improve than multiple ISP's over the same wire ever could. Where is it supported that if the cable MSO will only carry one preferred cable ISP, then the public must be offered the possibility within any franchise to take another MSO's offering? I'd love to see this. Its essentially the MSO's giving up monopoly rights. ATHM's potential total market would increase too since they could go after TWX customers. Problem is, there are actually times when monopolies make sense. They make sense when the cost to build the infrastructure cannot be repaid with the market split too thin. I don't know if cable is at that point or not. I feel very similarly about "open" access for the cable wires. If it could be done properly without destroying cable access I'd be all for it. So far I agree with the side that says "open" access would be just too complex to implement right now. Eric

To: ahhaha who wrote (11471)	6/19/1999 9:15:00 AM
From: Ahda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

[Kennard - referring to the cable operators]The ball is in your court. And if you act responsibly, consumers will get broadband and that broadband pipe will follow the open tradition of the Internet. I was glad to hear yesterday that Michael Armstrong said that he is committed to this open tradition, both with respect to conduit and content. We are not regulating.But we are watching. Close how ? This communication delivery system be it bb or copper or satellite includes digital phone.

To: ahhaha who wrote (11471)	6/19/1999 11:51:00 PM
From: FR1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

I listened to a conference call recently by T addressing this issue. As I remember the call, they started by pointing out that the argument at hand is: How do we get BB Internet access into the American home? There are several methods: cable, DSL, local wireless and satellite. There is competition among these various methods. In Seattle, for example, the DSL rates were forced to down when T started deploying ATHM. T then pointed out that there were several problems with “Open Access”: First, only a small number of vendors could bring to the table the hardware and money that is necessary to make them a cable ISP. Thus the thousands of ISPs in the USA would still be screaming only they would be screaming oligarchy instead of monopoly. They would claim “open access” is meaningless - there is no difference between a 3 business “open access” monopoly and a 1 business monopoly. Second, there would be considerable re-engineering necessary thus slowing down the deployment that is currently planned. He ran down some of the technical problems and indicated that it is not at all clear that the addition of multiple ISPs could be done without serious potential problems to the quality of service. This is no time to experiment. Thirdly, and most important, he pointed out that some of the business that qualify to become cable ISPs are actually competitors with other BB interests. Putting them in a position to slow down or influence your cable roll out is not good business. I forgot who T used as a example, but let's say it was WorldCom. WorldCom could, possibly, be one of the qualifying cable ISPs. WorldCom also does a very big business deploying DSL. In a given territory where WorldCom is deploying DSL rapidly, WorldCom does not want cable coming in to compete. The reason, of course, is sales: Once you have a BB customer tied up they are not likely to switch quickly. So there is a race to see who can sign up customers first. Therefore, it would not be in WorldCom's interest to see rapid cable rollout and WorldCom, as a ISP, would be in a position to raise all kinds of issues (call in arbitrators, etc.) in an attempt to slow down the deployment of Internet cable. Fourth, if you want something as complicated and expensive as BB cable deployed without hesitation, it is best done by having one business do it. When this system was first designed, it was designed very simply and with the idea of having one ISP. No one complained at that time and certainly no one offered to help pay for it. Now we find that competitors, with interests not just in cable, want to take a ride on the backbone that T has built, redesign and slow down the deployment of the system for their own gains, and have the government regulate the rates on top of that. All this for a system that is not even been built. How quickly would the railroads have been laid if the trucking industry was involved in the roll out (and had the ability to call in arbitrators when desired)? T was very strong on the fact that what these people wanted was common carrier status for Internet cable. IHMO, I do not understand how multiple ISPs can possibly run over cable without government rate regulations following very quickly. Let's just suppose multiple ISPs are allowed by T. Before the ink on the contract is dry, lawyers for WorldCom will quickly find a point to argue about and ask for government arbitration. The government will then have to decide what is a fair charge. We all know that as soon as politicians and bureaucrats enter the picture, they will always go for the cheapest rate because it gets them elected. Personally, I agree with the FCC. If you start messing with the system right now, it may never get built. Let's keep our hands off, let the system be built (so we have something), and somewhere down the road, after it is built, we will see if we need to regulate it. Who knows what the future holds? Maybe cable Internet will not be the system used for home BB Internet access.