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: RTev who wrote (12572)	7/17/1999 3:02:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 29970

RTev, a well thought out analysis. Thanks. But while your thin thread analogy actually exists in one dimension, as you suggest, I see it differing in others. WECO (now LU) had problems selling its enormous capacity to T's competitors due to a more obvious form of conflict of interest than exists at the present moment between T and ATHM. The latter case involving ATHM is not directly analogous, rather it demands a more panoramic view of Internet dynamics in order to more fully appreciate what is taking place. This has to do not only with front office sales and marketing, or whether T decides to open up its channels to competitors. It also speaks directly to the model of Internet openness, versus the Wangification of yet another proprietary model, as well. But getting back to your analogy of WECO, MCI, FON and the almost infinitely growing list of others, were loathed to plunk down cash into the coffers of T for their switches. Shareholders' interests were actually served extremely well when LU was spun off and proceeded to re-create itself as an independent entity. I therefore see these dynamics as not quite the same in the scenarios currently being discussed here re: T and ATHM. T doesn't have to forsake ATHM entirely in order to pick up the fruits being left on the table by others. If those fruits aren't picked up in time, others will. Or much worse, they will rot. I see the problems here as being one of T's using undue self-restraint at the present time while it struggles over what it must do in the area of taking on new ISP and other enhanced service provider accounts. T's current internal conflicts stem from many issues emanating from many different directions, but one that I've looked at in particular stems from their notion that they must now stick with ATHM on an exclusive basis, almost purely due to the need for corporate- and personal- face saving reasons. It would be difficult for them, immediately following their more grandiose predictions and platform announcements, to do anything to the contrary. I rationalize these conflicts from some recent developments in the area of what T now sees as their true potential for high capacity delivery, as opposed to a more restrictive model which they had previously and erroneously perceived, which was largely predicated on the advances (if you can call them that) of the cable industry prior to T's buying into it. Think of it. Miles of Backbone Fiber with multi- TERAbit potential being delivered to a cluster of users in a neighborhood being supported by a design which is supportive of no more than a few Mb/s, which must then be shared by hundreds or thousands of users. Now that it has become clear that through some additional [and more rapidly than originally perceived, recoverable] investments in outside plant, they could garner a much greater share of the market while thwarting their primary competitors (the Bells and the emerging wirelesses), I feel confident that they are having some serious second thoughts about their original commitments. I could be wrong about this, but I hardly think so. They have to fill their pipes... not only the ones they have now, but the ones that they see as imminently achievable over the next year or two. T is planning to open up their gates before most of the traffic takes another set of routes. Comments welcome. Regards, Frank Coluccio ps - Yes, I did catch your original intent behind your post. That's why I bifurcated my reply to you whereby in one part it was To RTev, and then addressed To Thread, in the next. Later,