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: E. Davies who wrote (13493)	8/4/1999 6:25:00 AM
From: E. Davies	Respond to of 29970

No mention of @home, but relevant anyway. Games could be a very popular app for broadband. *** Dreamcast Network to hook gamers onto the Internet -- with broadband access to come. Is it a platform maker? excite.com Embattled video game maker Sega of America Inc. has signed AT&T as the preferred Internet provider for its next-generation Dreamcast system, say sources close to the companies. The console -- due to be released on Sept. 9 -- will come with a 56Kbps modem and use AT&T's (NYSE:T) Worldnet service. As part of the agreement, AT&T and Sega will co-market what will be known as the Sega Dreamcast Network, said the source.

To: E. Davies who wrote (13493)	8/4/1999 2:21:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Bell got a tan. Jermo got excited. He's excitable, but that can also be constructive. The alternative is the no risk RBOC guaranteed return of mediocrity. Att unjustifiably fears open access so they want broad participation from many narrow contents as a way to appease the communities. It's a PBS schmaltz ploy. You can go back longer than a year on this thread and find many doubts expressed by me about the great glorious intervention of the now reincarnating Ma Bell. The thread preferred the guaranteed existence and safety under the tutelage of RBOC protection because they thought it meant their short term price prayer would be answered. The belief in Att given legitimacy was so strong that the prayer was answered by mass purchase of stock. It's called buying the hype and fulfilling your own prayer as along as you bought early. They approved because it was another purchase like UMG without direct financial commitment. They leveraged their equity instead. Att doesn't necessarily want or get YHOO stock. According to Businessweek's preferred and irresponsible interpretation Att would be relieved of some of it. Att wants subs. YHOO brings that to the deal. A merger gets Att what they want without having to give up critical control. YHOO also brings capability. Those guys can get the content that Jermo wants coming out of your box. Att sure can't complain about that because it would raise subs rate considerably. Say, double the rate at least.

To: E. Davies who wrote (13493)	8/5/1999 1:18:00 AM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

I'm still not sure where AT&T sits on this. If they dont believe in the ability of ATHM to bring in revenue from content why are they so steadfast against allowing "open" access? They're so steadfast against it because they know they don't have the technology right now to provide it with acceptable quality of service. But more fundamental is the locus of that regulatory battle. Cities and counties are assuming a right to regulate these extra services on the cable wires. T knows that they won't stop with cable modems. As soon as T starts offering telephone services over their cable wires, the same debate could erupt once again. You can bet that the local telephone monopoly will insist that T's cable lines should be opened up to competitive carriers. They will make the same arguments to the same jurisdictions. And "why do they even own @home?" Because TCI owned @home. TCI and the other MSOs needed an outfit that could provide a level of networking expertise that was too far out of the realm of the cable guys. @home and RoadRunner were created to bring the partner companies technology that they didn't feel they could handle on their own. I doubt that AT&T would have taken the same approach had they owned the same cable plant five years ago. They don't need @home for its technology. I suppose there would be some debate about whether they'd be able to do it right, but there's little doubt that AT&T would believe that it could, by itself, handle all of the technology issues involved in cable modem service.