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 : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: playavermont who wrote (10389)	7/27/1999 6:48:00 PM
From: RTev	Respond to of 28311

I have no doubt there's a connection between yesterday's transfer ruling in SF and today's (and yesterday's) action in ATHM and T. The connection with GNET seems more tenuous, but you might be right that it's now being valued partly for its Vulcan-cable-related future which is brighter if cable companies control their own destinies with high-speed access and the other even more lucrative features that are unspoken but vitally important to the companies that are fighting the access issue. One of the interesting side notes on the battle is that so much of it is focused on Portland. That franchise which was TCI is now in technical and legal limbo. Vulcan's cable systems would seem to have no stake there, but I suspect they have significant interest in the outcome of that case. AT&T, Charter, Cox, Comcast and all the other companies are trading systems in order to consolidate their systems within larger regional blocks. Portland -- once its fate is settled -- would be a huge prize for Vulcan's cable system. I imagine they'd be happy to trade one of their large-market systems to AT&T for Portland if the locals there decide upgrading the system is more important than sticking it to the big-bad cable guys. Why? Sports. The Trailblazers. Sports is the single biggest draw for cable systems. Basketball and baseball provide a huge market for local systems because the local team controls its broadcast contracts and usually produces its own broadcasts. In Portland, that means basketball and Paul Allen. Owning the team, its broadcast production company, and the cable system on which many of the games are shown would allow Allen's various interests to provide a fascinating demonstration of creative interactive TV and web-content. They may even benefit in the end from the legal tumble. Since it will be the last large city on the west coast to get an upgraded cable system, once it finally happens they might end up with a system that has newer technology than the others.

To: playavermont who wrote (10389)	7/27/1999 10:04:00 PM
From: red_dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

Reason: San Francisco ruling on AT&T to be able to keep their high speed system "closed" to other isp's such as AOL. ??? I don't think it benefits T or @home to keep it closed as you mentioned. What we meaning share holders of @home and T would love to see AOL and others pay for the service. Any arguments welcome. Rg

To: playavermont who wrote (10389)	7/27/1999 11:15:00 PM
From: yzfool	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

There is a rare opportunity available for a cable company to make a market stirring, trend setting business decision that will positively effect the market value of the companies involved. Its been mentioned in several articles, and on various threads. I'm going to mention it here for GNET long's feedback. (This may have been discussed already.) I believe that it will happen, as the debate for open access heats up, and as AOL share value struggles. In fact, the more heated the debate, the greater the impact and genius of this move when it is made: the for profit AOL/cable access alliance. Imagine all the traffic and revenue that would be directed to the lucky cable infrastructure and its affiliate cable ISP and Portal; imagine the mutual benefit to AOL's share value (currently this alliance would be very valuable to AOL; Charter name your price). This traffic , I believe, is unique and valuable. AOL has been described as a stepping stone for neophyte net surfers, both young and old but specifically a very young crowd drawn to community chats sites, where as other more specialized ISP's like PRODIGY attract a more professional net user (of course I am generalizing and there are many exceptions). The value of this market stems from the following: #1. Ad dollars flock to a youthful market to promote anything from clothing and music to sports and food. #2. Younger net users may be more comfortable making online financial transactions. #3. A beginner audience may be more receptive to new internet experiences and offerings, and therefore may explore to a greater degree. And finally #4 - size. GNET does not compete in this scenario; on the contrary, the relationship is complementary due to the translocated audience, and GNET's success still depends on its content offerings. Imagine GNET at #2 on Mediametrix. yzfool