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: FR1 who wrote (11504)	6/20/1999 2:59:00 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

This is the same kind of argument that Att CEO Brown made in 1982 when the government first threatened to break up the Ma Bell monopoly. Brown's argument was that your phone would go sky high if that were allowed to happen. It wasn't only Brown who had this view, it was held by the best and brightest that resided in universities or corporations. Smart guys so smart they couldn't see the elementary truths. It's the old sacrifice the principles for expediency and then go back and clean up the mess. Reminds me of the "first balance the budget and then cut taxes" line the Democrat controlled Congress peddled. The thing was that taxes weren't going to be cut whether the budget was in balance or not. It took Reagan's insistence on cutting taxes regardless that pulled the nation out of the delusion that paying high tax rates has some economic benefit when in reality it only promotes economic inefficiency. It is taking Armstrong's insistence to keep the market closed to Att until the cable business is monopolized by them under the rationalization that it won't get built otherwise. That's as presumptuous as old man Brown's brainless claim. Whatever Att can do in a closed market, Att can do better in a market that is open to outside competitors. That means that if copper ISPs want to partner with RBOCs and field a cable alternative to ATHM, they should not be precluded from doing so by government in order to protect a nascent market. You are saying that Att shouldn't have to take risks. If the risk is so high, then no competitors will be willing to enter, so Att shouldn't be concerned. You and Armstrong say the only way to get BB Internet access into the American home is a protected Att. 1. What is the problem under First? Anyone can scream whatever they want. So what? 2. Considerable re-engineering takes time. So what? With whom are they racing? The only conceivable answer is that they are racing to pay for the over-leveraging Armstrong cooked up trying to grab the distribution market. 3. Third may be important to Att, but that is part of the mistake that monopolists always make and why they shoot themselves in the foot to such an extent that they make a mess of their own businesses and make life miserable in their death throes for everyone. See MSFT. What is in Att's interest is the exact opposite of what is averred here. One isn't qualified to lead a corporation until one understands this point. Neither you nor Armstrong seems to get it. Neither do most CEOs. 4. T didn't build the infrastructure. They bought a portion of the existing infrastructure. Are you saying that if another RBOC buys another portion that the FCC should preclude them from entering cable broadband? Why should government rate regulation follow multiple ISPs on a given MSO system? What has government to do with it? Why is regulation needed? What is the purpose of regulation? (I've never heard anyone give a coherent answer to this last question.) You agree with the FCC? If you start messing with the system, the system may never get built? Which is the system that shouldn't be messed with? After we build this unknown thing, then we will decide if it needs regulation. What does regulation have to do with anything at hand and why are you addressing this to my separate and distinct markets argument? I smell short term capital gain self interest working strongly in Armstrong's weak points you are borrowing, but you haven't smelled long term capital gains in the strong points I've made about separate and distinct. The FCC had better start acting like they understand what constitutes competition, because the road they are on will put them in place to reincarnate the cable tv mess of the past decades and all the way there they will think they are embracing the principles of competitive markets. When we get there how long will it be before we hear from the FCC the need for regulation in order to achieve "fair competition"? From what you suggest, not long.