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 (14530)	8/15/1999 1:36:00 AM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

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. My premise is that it is in the best interest of ATHM to work independently without interference from the MSO's. Secondarily the broadband experience we are waiting for will not come over the system built today not even over mini-fiber nodes. Therefore to protect it is a waste of time and resources. Better to allow natural competitive forces to get the next generation system built. Most of the voices here cry over the ruination of a system barely worth saving. My stated "engineered" scenario was just the mechanism I used to explore and focus my own thoughts regarding open access. I am now entirely in favour of open access. It can work. I also believe that ATHM should separate itself from the MSOs partners. How should this happen? I don't know. But one must have a vision. It's all too clear that one must work within the constraints of reality. That is the biggest problem with my scenario - it counts on the predicted behaviour of all these separate entities, which can't be done. The technical difficulties exist only if one chooses to believe that the current system, which works adequately well at less than 4% penetration rate, is worth saving. Run the numbers, ATHM under protected access will have about 3.5 million users by 2003 at the current penetration rates. What will AOL have by 2003 40 million? The MSO's will kill ATHM.

To: ahhaha who wrote (14530)	8/15/1999 2:21:00 AM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Responses to some of Ahhaha objections. At least those that indicate a lack of understanding of the proposed concept. [Ahhaha's responses are italicized] 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. Not I. For the scenario to have a chance of working dialup, DSL, and wireless must be used as a customer shunt to set the penetration rate in the last mile at sustainable levels. This is a must and if you do not see this then you have not understood the fundamental concepts of my position. 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. Huh?, Major disconnect. The entire bandwidth (or at least the bandwidth set aside for Internet access) of the individual MSO is for lease. How is that communism? 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. Really? If this is true then the internet as we know it is praticing communism. No it's called a competitive market. Each end user is free to choose any UWP or none if they choose. They all coexist.