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: gpowell who wrote (14516)	8/14/1999 9:21:00 PM
From: E. Davies	Respond to of 29970

I'm almost afraid to ask this question yet again, but it is pertinant to your three tier model. What is an ISP (User World Provider) anyway? What value do they bring? I can reach any e-mail provider or home page provider through its url. I dont have to be connected through that ISP. Those services are available for free anyhow. Is an ISP content? Nope- you can get that with the URL too. SI and thestreet.com are not ISP's. AOL content is available for $9.95 already, never forget that. Is an ISP nothing more than customer service? Going to Earthlink for customer service for a AT&T<->@home<->Earthlink connection isnt going to do much good is it? Another question. If under your model the MSO sets the tiering and the prices where is the competition? The multiple ISP's cannot compete on price and since they have to share the same wires they cant compete on performance either. What was the point again? Eric

To: gpowell who wrote (14516)	8/14/1999 10:24:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

I don't agree with how you are suggesting the company brings about a desirable end. You can't engineer such an end. You get a desirable end by moving towards an ideal within the constraints laid out by others. That way you don't let their stupidity impede your progress. Neither do you let your own knowledge do the same. You have to roll with the punches and fight your own fight. From the headend back ATHM would own the infrastructure, including the backbone. Is this desirable? I don't think so. Is ATHM a distribution company? I hope not because that is a low margin business which doesn't demand high added value effort. The secret strategy behind this angle is to maintain control, but control relinquishes growth and value add. The MSO's would own the last mile. They do now. Current ISP's would link their systems to ATHM's backbone. The GTE solution. Hmmm. Easier stated than implemented. I agree with Milo that linear extension of existing infrastructure distribution model using say, WDM, is cost prohibitive and may not scale anyway. You would have to beef up 2.5 gig. That simply won't cut it. A customer would then be free to choose their own ISP - the cost to access the network coming bundled with the service. Since content and services would not be dictated to customers by ATHM The BB market is too nascent to claim this. ATHM would sell you anything that was in demand. this form of open access should be acceptable to all parties. It is. I believe it is in the best interest of all parties for ATHM to renounce their exclusive agreements with all MSO's and immediately implement the one network paradigm. (just a tad of hyperbole) This is what I said at the beginning of this post was imprudent. You don't have to tie one arm behind your back to demonstrate you fight fairly. Who says that exclusivity is bad? I think it is because you get protection at too high of a cost, but it is a different thing to go out and seek this ideal actively. If it is the natural way, it will occur in its own good time. Putting your will on the world sounds like Calvanism: my way is right, your way is wrong. You can believe this, but trying to actualize it invites the disaster of intervention. The MSO's must give up direct control of ATHM. They don't have direct control. To implement control all the partner MSOs have to vote as a block. They can only vote for management change. How does disagreeing block members agree on the new management? Seems out of control. ATHM would agree to restrict it's services to Internet data services; leaving VoIP and the traditional analog and digital broadcast TV to the MSOs. This is in place now. ATHM would be split into two or more divisions. One concerned primarily with the network infrastructure and the other an ISP providing content and services. Can't serve two masters. These two areas are not compatible under the same roof. This has been the history of such arrangements. Spin-off is preferred because business risk of two dissimilar divisions is problematic. ATHM would then be free to offer its services to other distribution channels. You mean distribution networks. The networks currently under ATHM's wing represent something like 60% of homes passed. They have the freedom, but they wouldn't have that degree of freedom under the paradigm because competitors like AOL could gain dominance in a given region. This concept only works under a new last mile model. Immediate repercussions of this decision will be: 1. The end of the open net coalition. Yawn. 2. The infusion of cash from other ISP's which can be used to increase the install rate. How idealistic. Why should they do this? Trying to answer only brings up all the issues currently being discussed and going nowhere. 3. The quick bandwidth saturation of the last mile. No doubt about that. It's called the free ride. Let me ride and maybe I'll pay if it works out big for me. My proposal provides for 3 layers of competition. 1.) At the last mile between: cable, dial up/dsl, wireless. Ridiculous. We have been talking exclusively about cable. Not about other technologies and markets. Wireless and DSL are completely different markets and have no consideration under paradigm. 2.) Network Service Provider (NAP) (ATHM's current role) - the last mile bandwidth would be leased to the highest qualified bidder. The bandwidth is not partitioned between service providers - it's all or none. Communism. This is what happened in Russia when well-meaning individuals tried to rid the country of despots and created the greatest despot of all in the Soviet Union. 3.)Current ISPs compete to be the User World Provider (UWP) for end users. These companies provide the traditional internet experiences e.g. AOL's home page More communism. Let's look at last mile bandwidth mangagement: Assuming nominal node size is 500 and penetration rate trends to 25%, by 2001, then local loop will have 125 users. 30mb/s bandwidth can be partitioned into 4 tiers of service with maximum transfer rates set. for example: Bandwidth tiers max. rate (kb/s) (not guaranteed at all times). Tier one 128K Tier two 256 Tier three 512 Tier four 1024 The actual values of the four tiers should be set to prevent bottlenecks if at all possible. This can be accomplished by setting prices which cause customers to shunt to DSL, wireless or dial up. Essentially the MSO's can set the penetration rate which best balances revenue with service. The last mile bandwidth pricing is controlled by the MSO's. The end user bill encapsulates 3 service providers fees [MSO's tiered service + Network Service Provider + User World Provider] This program refutes the only way that the ideal of the paradigm is approached. The ideal is free market competition, not administered tyranny. The above is based on antiquating technology of the old model. That's not my concept of the paradigm or of ATHM.