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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (14510)	8/14/1999 8:37:00 PM
From: E. Davies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

I am inclined to think that they are headed in the direction of full common carriage. It's their core competence. Content? It's T's albatross. AT&T does not do content even now. They own voting control of a company that does. This is a big difference. Everyone with vision hopes someday that the architecture will allow common carriage. It will take many years to achieve properly however. Eric

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (14510)	8/14/1999 9:01:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 29970

The Att SLC test is not so difficult to implement as it may seem. However it doesn't try to address what seems to be the underlying thread of the discussion: provision for QoS and open-like access. The test is to see if taking fiber deeper into the loop by planting mini-nodes closer to the user and by tying them together with separable feeds through TDM. TDM accomplishes the second order differentiation necessary to alleviate bandwidth overload over a 500 user sub-space. By taking the user density to 50 per mini-node improves bandwidth degradation maybe as high as 50% on a clear day. That could bump up 500k to 750k assuming the available overhead of a T1 equivalent. No great shakes but the occurrence of 500k dropping to 60k would be reduced significantly. That shakes. No relief though for the open-like access problem and you can't even begin to dream about QoS, SOHO, or other power user's needs. They will just have to do the best they can with what is available. You and I know the true solution.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (14510)	8/14/1999 9:43:00 PM
From: E. Davies	Respond to of 29970

That was a great post Frank. I went to track it down on the last mile thread. Heres a link to it that should work. Message 10955473 Eric

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (14510)	8/14/1999 9:45:00 PM
From: Michael P. Michaud	Respond to of 29970

Here it is, Frank: To: Michael P. Michaud who wrote (11106) From: Frank A. Coluccio Saturday, Jun 12 1999 11:55AM ET Respond to Post # 11110 of 14524 Mike, Sure, other ISPs can be accessed over the ATHM infrastructure. They may even receive "first page" status (it's doable), if deals are cut, terms are reached, etc. They could even partition some of the spectrum in ATHM's backbone if they want, assuming, again, that amenable terms are reached, or even forced, as it were. But you missed the point of my message. The premise in the foregoing argument was that the other ISPs wanted "equal access," comparably efficient and achievable, to what ATHM enjoys. And these conditions preclude "using" ATHM's proprietary network, or their last mile cable modem channels. Rather, it means just what I stated. And that is, giving the other ISPs comparable accommodations to what the MSOs are affording ATHM at this time. Anythng(sic) short of this would relegate the other ISPs to the back seat, and I think that it is clear by now that Case and many of the others wont hear of that, if they feel that there is a shot at the real thing. But if we take your argument to the next level, do you really think that this is a way out at this time, under the present state of affairs, or state of the art? I am confident that ATHM, alone, will have all to do, themselves, in order to keep their own congestion levels manageable, and their pipes passable, in the near to intermediate terms. I also feel very strongly that they will not be able to do this in many regions of the country for some interim periods going forward, without resorting to establishing speed limits, curfews and other restrictions based on types of services permitted on their channel(s). I will stand by my position on this until the last mile is re-engineered and re-segmented through the use of deeper fiber serving smaller clusters of users, combined with modified/expanded channel allocations for cable modem use in the downstream and upstream regions of the spectrum. Only then will other ISPs be permitted to enjoy the same limitations as ATHM. [Irony intended.] I appreciate your comments, and those of others here, nonetheless. Regards, Frank Coluccio