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: Michael L who wrote (12810)	7/21/1999 1:21:00 PM
From: Ron Dior	Respond to of 29970

Wednesday July 21, 12:43 pm Eastern Time Company Press Release SOURCE: Excite@Home Response of Excite@Home to FCC Working Paper on 'The FCC and the Unregulation Of the Internet' REDWOOD CITY, Calif., July 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Excite@Home (Nasdaq: ATHM - news) issued the following statement in response to the FCC's working paper on ''The FCC and the Unregulation of the Internet'': The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is to be congratulated for its thoughtful and thorough analysis of the history of Internet ''unregulation.'' It is noteworthy that every serious governmental study of government-regulated resale of broadband facilities has come to the same conclusion -- that such regulation would hurt consumers, not help them. ( Photo: newscom.com ) OpenNet's claim that the OPP working paper supports its advocacy of government-regulated resale of cable broadband facilities suggests that OpenNet continues to follow its ''Spin First, Read Later'' approach to policy debates. The paper states that the FCC has learned three fundamental lessons in its ''unregulation'' of the Internet. First, don't impose legacy regulations on new technologies, which is exactly the kind of regulation OpenNet advocates. The second lesson is when new services replace legacy systems, deregulate the old instead of regulating the new. By contrast, OpenNet advocates imposing the legacy regulation on new facilities. Third, the paper advises never to regulate based on the perception of potential future bottlenecks. The entire OpenNet argument is premised on the possibility of a future, rather than an existing, bottleneck. Indeed, the paper explicitly rejects OpenNet's position. It states that ''rather than risk hindering cable Internet service deployment in its early stages by imposing a potentially inappropriate regulatory model, the Commission has determined that the marketplace should address early deployment issues while the FCC monitors the ongoing deployment closely. At mid-1999 it appears that this policy is working.'' Not only is OpenNet ignoring the laws of economics and competition by suggesting that regulating facilities will not adversely affect investment or deployment and that new entrants with 2% market share should be regulated to protect incumbents like GTE with 97% market share, they are now trying to rewrite the FCC's expert analysis. We'd suggest instead that they, and all others interested in the debate, actually read it. Ron Dior

To: Michael L who wrote (12810)	7/21/1999 3:44:00 PM
From: Techplayer	Respond to of 29970

Michael, Here is the response to the fcc... Statement From the OpenNET Coalition in Response to William Kennard's Announcement That FCC Would Intervene On Behalf of AT&T Against the People of Portland WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 21, 1999--The openNET Coalition, a group of more than 200 Independent Service Providers battling for competition in high-speed cable access to the Internet, today issued the following statement in response to a speech by FCC Chairman William Kennard before the Federal Communications Bar Association yesterday. In the speech, Kennard announced that the FCC will intervene in the appeal of a federal lawsuit over whether local communities can require cable television companies to open their new high-speed network to competing ISPs. The case pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the appeal of a ruling last month by a federal court in favor of Portland, Oregon. The court ruled that local communities have the authority to require AT&T and other cable corporations to sell access to cable lines to competitors. Kennard said he wanted to "explain to the court why it's important that we have a national policy." Greg Simon, co-director of the openNET Coalition, responded today to the speech, saying: "We are astonished that a high public official would put the federal government at the service of a massive communications corporation as William Kennard has done. This is not just about jurisdiction, it is about abdication of responsibility. If Kennard wants the FCC to have jurisdiction, then the FCC needs to have a policy. But Kennard has refused to make policy, saying he preferred the government to keep its 'hands off.' "Doing nothing while AT&T turns a cable monopoly into an Internet monopoly is not a policy, it's surrender. It is a stall to allow AT&T time to build a new high-speed cable monopoly. The FCC helping AT&T to oppose competitive Internet services is like a referee taking sides in the middle of a fight. "This is not just about the FCC filing a legal brief. Kennard took sides only days after the federal court ruled in Portland's favor and he didn't just announce that the FCC would take the side of AT&T and cable. He made this announcement at a national cable convention to an audience of those who would financially benefit most from his decision. "Since then, he has given interviews to the press, briefed editorial boards, lobbied the mayor of San Francisco and taken a extremely aggressive public position on the FCC's decision to support AT&T - what he calls 'hands off.' "But 'hands off' does not help local officials faced with AT&T's bullying and threatening, lobbying and suing. 'Hands off' does not help consumers who know that cable rates have skyrocketed 22 percent over the last few years and rates for cable Internet access will do the same. 'Hands off' does not help anyone but AT&T. "After Kennard spoke at the cable convention, a variety of well-respected, well-known consumer advocates went to talk to him and complain about a position that will hurt consumers. According to consumer representatives, Kennard refused to consider their position, their concerns or their legitimate defense of consumer interests and was inflexible in his defense of AT&T. "All of this leads us to ask, what is going on? Why doesn't the FCC make a policy? Why doesn't the FCC listen to consumers and small business? Why is Kennard so strident in his active, legal defense of AT&T? Consumers and businesses should be asking the same thing." For more information on the openNET Coalition, contact www.opennetcoalition.org. CONTACT: openNET Coalition by Ignition Strategic Communications Sydney Rubin, 202/244-1200