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: ahhaha who wrote (14159)	8/12/1999 3:14:00 AM
From: tom offenbach	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

"@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." No. I expect that you know the breakdown of the different divisions within ATHM and I wanted to be clear you knew which I was referring to, @Home. Congrats on coining the term, 'ISP for ISP's.' What do you think UUNet refers to themselves as? '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.' Who is gonna pay for this? "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.' I'm assuming that the MSO's are not going to finance building new facilities just to give them away. If some company does take that route, great, proof that govt regulation is not needed. I'm sure you've heard of TCG? A similar strategy could be achieved for a coax clec. It's pretty interesting that the 21 MSO partners of ATHM could probably do this by turning @Home - the access company :) into the Coax ISP for ISP's :) 'Who will build this non-existent infrastructure? ' It's already there. ".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.' ATHM exists because there WAS an opportunity to drive efficieny in a market. That market happened to be CATV. Not as we knew it, but as we knew it and more. ATHM's expertise was in developing a coalition of companies which believed ATHM's theory that additional revenue could be realised by following it's strategy. 21 MSO's bought it. NOW they must leverage their LIMITED market position to become something new altogether as you put it. I'm glad we're on the same page! "Having ATHM be the HFC CLEC is technically doable ATHM could simply sell HFC peering to ISP by directly connecting ISP's to the @Home backbone." 'AOL doesn't want to pay the peer money. It feels it has no peers.' This argument doesn't hold. AOL can't have it's cake and eat it too. The fact is that AOL charges alot of money for putting content within the AOL network. You might call that 'linking' but it's not. Keyword searches within AOL are exactly that, within AOL. When someone uses that function and goes to the content in question, AOL gets money. How? Usage. What does that equate to? Peering. If AOL is so peered then why do so many companies buy space on AOL and also maintain www sites? Assuming open access was the case, do you think the MSO would upgrade their networks only to give them away? Buying peering is a much more efficient model for all parties. 'They won't go to $0. Maybe $10. In telephony it's called basic service charge. ' It is almost $0 now. I can get free ISP access....granted it does require voice line. However, I can get ATHM with no cable tv service(no basic service charge) and use VoIP which enables me to get dial tone or voice capabilities with no telco bills.