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 : COM21 (CMTO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lml who wrote (1394)	12/12/1999 9:35:00 AM
From: Techplayer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2347

lml, At this point, do you feel that management has vindicated itself and is strong enough to propel CMTO to new heights? Brian

To: lml who wrote (1394)	12/12/1999 2:54:00 PM
From: pat mudge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2347

I asked PF about prospective contracts based on DOCSIS and he verified what he'd said on CNBC. If all goes as planned, I'll attend the cable show this Wednesday and try to find out more. Good article on the industry in today's LATimes: latimes.com Pat

To: lml who wrote (1394)	12/13/1999 1:13:00 AM
From: tech101	Respond to of 2347

AT&T leads the way to open Internet cable access Slugging it out in the market Published Friday, December 10, 1999, in the San Jose Mercury News EDITORIAL WITH a nod, not a shove, from the government, AT&T has decided to open up its cable pipeline. Caving in to the inevitable, the telecom giant has agreed to stop forcing all cable customers to use its exclusive Internet service provider, Excite@Home, in which AT&T is the largest investor. Instead, AT&T says it will allow competing ISPs equal access to its system starting in mid-2002, when its contract with Excite@Home expires. At least that's the general understanding that AT&T reached with MindSpring, the nation's second largest ISP, after months of negotiations. If the agreement becomes an industry-wide model, ISPs will be able to compete openly for high-speed cable customers as federal law currently enables them to do over slower-speed telephone lines. ISPs operate computer servers that connect customers to the Internet through e-mail and other services. The data and images travel over networks of satellites, phone lines and cable TV systems owned by AT&T and other telecoms. Open competition, in general, is best for consumers. The issue, in our mind, has always been one of timing. MindSpring, America Online and other ISPs have demanded immediate access. They've taken their case to Congress and local cable regulators in what has become an expensive and high-profile lobbying campaign. AT&T had argued that forcing it to open up its system, in effect re-regulating cable, would undermine its investment of hundreds of billions of dollars and delay cable's deployment. It also claimed open access would create serious technical problems, with incompatible modems and system overloads. The Federal Communications Commission has refused to step in, other than to encourage AT&T and MindSpring to talk. The agency reasoned that broadband cable is in its infancy, with only 2 million subscribers nationwide. The more quickly AT&T and other cable owners deploy broadband, the quicker the public can choose among Internet options: wireless and satellite services, high-speed telephone lines, known as DSL, and broadband cable. The FCC's position made sense. Competition among technologies will lower prices and improve service. A case in point is in the South Bay, where the introduction of Excite@Home's service in Fremont and parts of Santa Clara County (not yet San Jose), has forced Pacific Bell and other telecoms to speed up their rollout of DSL and lower their prices. Excite@Home charges residential customers $40 a month for broadband cable, which, like a DSL phone line, provides a continuous link to the Internet and speeds much faster than a dial-up 56K modem. AT&T's about-face would seem to undercut its arguments. Its reversal could reflect several factors. First, AT&T may have concluded that continued feuding would damage goodwill and sap its resources. Second, it may not have wanted to give federal regulators cause to scotch its proposed $62 billion purchase of the MediaOne cable system. That comes on top of its $70 billion acquisition of Tele-Communications Inc. And then AT&T may have taken a hard look at its business model, and determined it could make more money inviting all comers, even at the expense of investment in Excite@Home. AT&T and MindSpring must now write into a contract the principle of open access. MindSpring and consumer groups want assurances from AT&T that it will not interfere with Internet content or steer customers to preferred sites. They also want equal treatment and equitable pricing for all ISPs. In other words, no playing favorites. AT&T has said it wouldn't. MindSpring is also worried that in the transition to competition AT&T will devise an architecture giving a technical edge to Excite@Home's modems. That's a legitimate concern. Nonetheless, the agreement between MindSpring and AT&T marks a significant breakthrough. ISPs will get to enter a new market. And AT&T will have two years to recoup its investment and fix technical glitches without added complications. Congress and the FCC should encourage all cable operators to follow AT&T's example. But otherwise, at least for now, regulators should sit on their hands and let the participants in the market work out details themselves.