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 (17554)	12/6/1999 1:45:00 PM
From: Jay Lowe	Respond to of 29970

Yes ... I plead over-enthusiasm re WCII ... T has the towers already. Agree that the pipe is the key. That's why I'm in favor of T bending over backward to throw @Home open to ISPs at the IP level. Then the ISPs have almost no case to get their toe into the subscriber's literal door. In the years ahead, T can then leverage off the pipe toward assorted interoperating wireless radii merging into a pervasive net ... cherry-picking revenue streams as they go. Economics of the pervasive T-driven net (per subscriber): - 1 cellphone/PDA service contract (x % share) - 1 fast internet contract - transport - 1 ISP contract - content level (x % share) - 6-10 home wireless appliances (x % share) - 6-10 pico-net device interface royalties (x % share) -- these latter two cycle, recurring every 2-3 years My only point is how the pipe itself pulls in other revenues at the PHY layer. I see the PHY revenues: - more defensible in the market than content-level revenues - more T-style consistent - more T-position strategic - potential PHY revenues rival or exceed content revenues - less cohesive competition? dunno. - PHY level business models are more ally-friendly than content level? For T to fulfill their goal ... carriage dominion ... they need to control the pipe at the hardware level ... they need to control what's in the set-top box, specifically. I vote to sacrifice whatever else is necessary along the way ... making the requisite noises of protest and anguish ... but to keep the eye on the box. The box becomes a wireless node ... gateway to computing appliances and services within the home.

To: ahhaha who wrote (17554)	12/6/1999 3:37:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

Jupiter Communications analyst Dylan Brooks said AT&T and other cable firms were the big winners... Wrong. ...Excite AtHome was also a loser, since it was losing its exclusive franchise, he said. Wrong. Between this guy, Bloch, and CNBC's biased reporting, it isn't hard to see why the stock is being pushed around. Brooks will tell you all about the value of competition, but then he says it's good only in an abstract way. That sounds like the FED and their double talk. Exclusivity was a mill stone around ATHM's neck. LOA crucifies AOL.

To: ahhaha who wrote (17554)	12/6/1999 5:27:00 PM
From: Jack Hartmann	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

<Wireless is a flawed technology> Best example of it is listening to a local radio station at night in our area. Pops and crackles. Too many generating stations for the band. Seeing cell phone reception decreasing in quality due numerous cell towers in our area. Reminescense of CB radio traffic the in 1970's. Clear when it started, but that silly Convoy song swamped users. Govt. auctioning the frequencies in the early 1990's helped some, but communication interference is fickle animal. For example, Arc welding nearby causes static to my phone/radio. Power lines still cause me to lose connection on the phone/radio. Many want to be free of the cable tether, but users are increasing too rapidly swamping all frequencies. Sometimes I read all the merits of wireless on the technical end and don't understand it even with an engineering degree. Much easier to see and hear the wireless results first hand. Maybe better in the future, but 20 years of listening haven't convinced me. Jack