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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: t2 who wrote (25804)	7/9/1999 8:14:00 PM
From: John Donahoe	Respond to of 74651

Friday July 9 7:31 PM ET Hackers To Release New Computer Bug, Experts Say dailynews.yahoo.com

To: t2 who wrote (25804)	7/9/1999 10:54:00 PM
From: RTev	Respond to of 74651

Great points, t2. I would just call it a "divide and conquer" strategy. By this i mean make the ISPs fight fiercely so that no one service becomes the prefered brand (as AOL is now) in the future. I agree. Multiple ISPs in the dial-up realms have encouraged an open internet rather than re-development of the kinds of closed systems that were common in the 80s. Few ISPs can afford to introduce the kind of closed system that AOL still uses (as a legacy from its 80s origins.) Like Yahoo, Microsoft benefits from an open internet. Unfortunately, "open access" for cable doesn't necessarily encourage an open internet. Right now, it's mostly meant to slow down development of the systems, and then to give AOL an opportunity to offer their gatekeeper system on the new medium. If it resulted in the same kind of multiple-ISP structure now seen in dial-up services, then I think Microsoft could use the same "divide and conquer" strategy there, but I don't think it will. Instead, there would be only a few outfits with the money to offer service on cable, and they'd be more inclined to offer a gatekeeper-type service. Even on exclusive-provider services, Microsoft's investment money is likely to keep both T's @home and RoadRunner open rather than becoming gatekeepers. Microsoft would discourage either of them from developing the kind of AOL-like interface that isolates the user from the internet tools provided by default with modern machines. There are other arguments within the @home partnership for openness. Cox, for instance, is a partner in @home but has also made significant investments in local portal pages. I'm sure they'd rather have Cox@home users looking at a Cox page instead of an Excite page. AT&T seems to be willing to deemphasize the content part of the outfit they bought into since they recognize the regulatory dangers of emphasizing it too strongly. TWX -- one of the partners in RoadRunner -- also a huge array of web properties, but the Microsoft interest in that partnership will keep TWX from closing the system too tightly. On an open-inernet system, Microsoft's MSNBC.com could easily win out over TWX's cnn.com, so Microsoft will encourage that openness even on cable systems that offer exclusive access to just one of the cable ISPs.