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 (12006)	7/1/1999 11:48:00 PM
From: KW Wingman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Ahhaha said: <<<<<Actually I was wrong too >>>>> Frame it !! Ahhaha, You are wrong (again) did you learn anything? It is a close race but you may be wrong more often than you are right. Your opinion of the management of T and ATHM goes in the wrong category along with your opinion of Greenspan. Regards, Wingman

To: ahhaha who wrote (12006)	7/2/1999 12:45:00 AM
From: FR1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

ahhaha – I find I am in basic agreement with you on a lot of issues but there is one point I would like to hear your thoughts on again. This is the age-old argument over multiple ISPs. There is some debate over how well the system would work with multiple ISPs. Let's set the technical argument aside and assume we are going to allow multiple ISPs. I think most people seem to be in agreement that if we did have open access only a small number of ISPs would qualify. People like WorldCom and Sprint. Here are the arguments I seem to hear: Arguments in favor of multiple ISPs 1. More traffic and therefore more money. 2. A stronger long term business because our business is built on competition. 3. No problems from FCC. Arguments against multiple ISPs: 1. Time and cost to adjust the system. 2. Your competitors become your clients. It is this second argument that worries me. WorldCom, who would qualify as a ISP, is trying to sell DSL to the same customers that T/ATHM is trying to sell its service to. Whoever gets the customer to sign up first has a great advantage because the customer has invested money in the service and would probably be happy with either service for most general web surfing. Therefore, it would be in WorldCom's interest to delay the sale of cable as much as possible. As an ISP, WorldCom could probably raise a number of issues that would slow down deployment. Every day of delay is another day WorldCom can sign up more DSL customers. So the argument is that by accepting WorldCom as a client, T might have it's roll out slowed and lose a critical number of sales to WorldCom's DSL. * The ideal, free market, spirit in me says we should have multiple ISPs. * The business “this is war” reality side of me respects that if we are wrong we could lose very big. The best system does not always win. The typical keyboard we type on is intentionally designed to prevent humans from typing (the bad keyboard got the market share and won). I assume you feel we should go ahead with multiple ISPs but don't you feel there is a danger allowing WorldCom as an ISP as expressed in the argument above?