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: Michael P. Michaud who wrote (15050)	9/1/1999 2:44:00 PM
From: KailuaBoy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

> Technically correct. However, UMG doesn't think > they won't be owned by T and no one seems to be > contesting the purchase including the FCC commissioners > and DOJ. If the purchase is blocked, that's good > for T and ATHM. So your assertion doesn't make sense. How is it good for T and ATHM if the purchase is blocked? Did I say that? What assertion did I make that doesn't make sense? I simply pointed out to the crowd that UMG is not owned by T. They aren't rolling out ATHM marketing campaigns in anticipation of being owned by T. They are running their business. Advertising AOL for only 9.95 more is exactly the same as ATHM stating that you can have AOL if you pay 9.95 more. How's that an indicator of what T will do with UMG if and when the purchase is completed? <<<What's the drawback from T's point of view of waiting to push ATHM until they complete the transaction>>> > The drawback is that T has a conflict of interest. They > own or will own two competing companies. Where do they compete? RR has no content. Footprint for the most part doesn't overlap. If I want my cable and I'm in RR territory then I get the bird. If I want my cable and I'm in ATHM territory then I get ATHM. RR has no backbone. Where do they compete? > It can't be good for ATHM, but it is good for T to have a > broader reach for their services. I don't believe RR has > non-compete clauses, so AOL will be free to hook into the > cable freeway. Huh? If you mean that AOL may attempt to strike a deal with T for access to UMG last mile the same way that ATHM did with its' contracted MSO's then you are right. Will T sign that deal? No. What does AOL have that would make T sign over the business? They have "subs", oodles of subs. I believe that as time goes on that the AOL proposition begins to wane. The BIG internet experience will begin to be recognized and people will realize that they have a choice other than AOL. Time is on T's side. AOL will be squeezed. > That gives AOL the experience to implement broadband cable > on a large scale. It's a long way from where they are to that statement being true. They don't want to run a network. ATHM is running a dual OC48 backbone with a highly distributed architecture that ties in with 20 MSO's right now. That weed ain't easy to replace. AOL doesn't have the expertise or the motivation. <<<Let RR beep beep until T gobbles it up. Then do whatever they want with it.>>> > What do you mean by this? Time is on T's side. They will do with UMG what is in their best interest when and if the acquisition is complete. Until then the beep goes on. KB ps. Sorry for the sorry formatting. I can't figure that one out.