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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4695)	7/16/1999 10:02:00 PM
From: KW Wingman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

<<I was going to post this in the ATHM thread, but for the most part I'm getting fewer and fewer replies when I do. Where-o-where did AHhaha go? >> Ahhaha may be in SI Jail, hasn't posted since July 10th. If so, he is with us in memory, often wrong while being 100% convinced he was 100% correct, but a very interesting person nevertheless. I strongly support private property rights but that fools post you posted did make some good sense and I basically agree with it. Regards, Wingman

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4695)	7/17/1999 12:17:00 AM
From: Kenneth E. De Paul	Respond to of 12823

The issue is not the openness. It is how long T and At home spend fighting it or how much they spend fighting it. That time and money could be used to capitalize on it. Ususally when all is said and done, the fighters against this paradigm are the losers. I think the court battles will tie up the firms so that they will relegate themselves to last place faster than any open system could.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4695)	7/17/1999 3:37:00 AM
From: E. Davies	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12823

I dont think that Apple is a particularly good analogy for open access in the issue of the benefit of an "open" system. People muck this word "open" around so easily without considering what the word really means in whatever context they are using. Apple has a proprietary standard. Cable has DOCSIS which is an "open" standard. Anyone is allowed to develop cable communications equipment. Apple suffered because its standard had a small market share relative to the other standard. Cable market share is easily competetive with DSL market share. Another major issue that people keep ignoring is that opening the wires to multiple ISP's does nothing to change the monopoly control of the MSO's in how they build their systems and who they buy equipment from. In any one location you still have only one place to go if you want cable internet service. Reread the article in that sense remembering that AT&T will keep its monopoly over the cable wire no matter what and you see that much of what the fool says is irrelevant nonsense. I do feel that Apple is an awesome analogy when it comes to the issue of calling cable internet a "monopoly". Cable is a monopoly in the same way that Apple is a monopoly. You want an Apple computer (cable internet) you have to go to Apple (the MSO). You want a computer (internet service) and you have many many choices competing with each other. Eric