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: Ron Dior who wrote (14140)	8/12/1999 2:15:00 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

ibidem: I wanted to address the associated issues with the uniqueness of the MSO's infrastructure and the difficulty or inability in scaling it(space wise....NOT bandwidth). Scaling MSO infrastructure. We've discussed this into the ground. They've done that on Last Mile thread and many others. I originally stated that IMHO, Don't say, IMHO. Of course it's O, who else is writing? And the H is humbug. Maybe you need the H because you did quit and you're now eating H pie. @Home(the ISP/access provider) You're not sure which so you want to make sure we know? will evolve into what I called an ISP for ISP's. Is that why Jermo canned you? They thought you were a plant for Att? I created the ISP of ISP term and probably created the concept because six months ago neither the company wanted that nor did Att. It was the Jermo's macho Excite!? grab that forced Hindery to back away and reconsider how to remold ATHM in order to recover the pile of dough squandered on Excite!? and to rationalize the cost structure. TCI was already reeling from the infrastructure outlays, but as long as ATHM was willing to play ball and go along with the ISP^2 idea which is similar to the dumb pipe concept, the board would let management spin its wheels with pretty toys. Reality is that there is a finite amount of space in RDC's which will not permit re-selling of real estate to other ISP's. Is that what you're referring to with MSO space comment? Maybe Milo can get away with claims that open access can't be realistically accommodated, but this claim is ridiculous. Solution: rent a bigger building and move the RDC equipment over there. Re-selling of real estate? I guess you mean co-lo. Oh, I see. You are talking about open access issues. See my and Ted Schnur's discussion on this thread about how this can be done. I too, believe that open access will prevail and it will NOT be a result of govt regulation but market evolution. Very good, but it isn't what Att would like you to believe that they believe. Given the space constraints, it is highly unlikely and almost impossible for multiple ISP's to co-lo equipment. You are assuming that the infrastructure that exists now is that which will exist in 2 years. The Att SLC test and other technologies will refute that out of hand. Other technologies which are now close to busting the whole game wide open, will relegate all of Milo's arguments null. This is the circumstance for which ATHM must prepare itself. They can't hope to get the share unless what they offer has added value. ISP^2 shuts them out of that and makes ATHM nothing more than a mere ISP, a division of Att. I had suggested a year ago that eventually Att would absorb, buy, ATHM and either relegate it to wholly owned subsidiary or spin it off due to regulatory requirements. In any event the 2002 KT boundary looms and ATHM can be set adrift from any mooring. The way to secure the hull is to become something of value, provide value, create value, using the advantage of the current distribution superiority. this issue will force the emergence of the equivalent of a cable CLEC. You'll probably argue that the MSO itself would be this entity but that is not their expertise Who will build this non-existent infrastructure? The issue of open access arose because the MSOs have the only existing cable networks. For two years I have exhorted SBC or Att, whomever, to build their own network. The MSOs must provide ROW for such an effort. No one wants to. On what network is this cable CLEC going to ride? The only place is co-lo. Ugh. I smell the free ride and ISP^2 developing with the MSOs getting in bed with AOL in 2002. No wonder you quit. ..if it was, ATHM wouldn't be around. What is ATHM's expertise? ISP^2 distribution. If so, you contradict yourself. So you agree with me that ATHM must differentiates themselves by becoming something altogether new. The bells and whistles being blown by Bell and Whistle won't cut it. When I hear guys say they like Excite's presentation because it's better than Yahoo's, then I know that neither of those are anywhere near to what needs to be done. We need a media experience coming out of that monitor that eclipses all politics and corporate legerdemain such that people will crucify anyone who gets in the way. There is one company who could make this happen for ATHM. It's MSFT and they'd love the chance. It could exonerate them for the grievous sins they've perpetrated on us all. Having ATHM be the HFC CLEC is technically doable. Well now, I thought we had agreed that we don't want to go in this dead end direction. This stinks of protection. ATHM could simply sell HFC peering to ISP by directly connecting ISP's to the @Home backbone. Yeah, yeah, Ted and I worked that angle and Frank and others made comments about it. AOL doesn't want to pay the peer money. It feels it has no peers. This makes the most sense because WHEN consumer internet fees trend to $0, ISP's will account for infrastructure as a liability. They won't go to $0. Maybe $10. In telephony it's called basic service charge. How does this CLEC angle or peering help declining subs revenues? Do you really expect a peered ISP will take the brunt of the decline in subs revenue? Will the peered ISP have a working interest in value added BB media services? Who gets the peered ISP payment? MSO or ATHM? Is ATHM a distribution company? If it is, then it's a utility and it's way overvalued.