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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (19009)	1/18/2000 7:47:00 PM
From: JayPC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

Hi Frank, If exclusivity runs out you can bet that the pricing structures will change, given that the pipes will be open to others as well, relegating the situation to one of supply and demand based pricing. SHAW is spending 100million on upgrades, I don't see my @HOME price going up during the upgrades, however I do agree with what you said under certain situations. What I should of said was that as long as the consortium members hold an interest in @HOME (exclusivity or not), true supply and demand will not determine the end price for the consumer. Watch in Canada as open access begins, ROGERS, SHAW, Videotron, etc. will claim higher costs when selling the access to the ISPs. The pipes may be open to all, but the invested MSO have significant interest in @HOME being the ISP of choice. Notice my previous post about how the Cable modem cost will be incurred by the ISP, not the cable co. With @HOME in Canada, effectively the cable co picks up the cost. They offered Sympatico access to the lines for 39.95/mth (20% off the price for a non cable TV customer). Strangely enough the same price I pay, cable modem included. If you take the CRTC's commandment that the ISP's get a 20% discount off the best price available, that's $32 a month for Sympatico to ride the cable lines, then add their access say for an incredibly cheap $8 a month (just to make it competitive). I believe their cheapest dial up access is $15/mth. So i have a choice of @HOME for 39.95/mth cable modem included or Sympatico for $40 a month but I shell out $75 for the cable modem. In reality, the best price Sympatico could offer is probably $47/month plus modem. It will not be a level playing field. Now, if SHAW fully divests itself of @HOME AND it believes it can handle open access, then all bets are off. The supply and demand rules. No more Mr. Nice Guy. However, if SHAW fully divests itself but believes the lines cannot take the ISPs and @HOME together, the $40 vs $47 will still apply. I know I am assigning a lot of credit to the MSO's in this next statement, but if, for example, SHAW and Rogers know that the system cannot support multiple ISP's but they must comply with the CRTC ruling to provide it, how do they ensure it doesn't effect their revenue stream of current and future customers? They will stick with ATHM, market the hell out of it, and discourage other ISPs to try to go on the cable lines. Unless of course AOL buys a piece of them, or unless.... etc. But if you hold of everyone else from the cable lines, does the MSO risk losing cable as the accepted universal BB choice for consumers? Do the other 5612 ISPs offer other options so attractively that cable access becomes something we talk about 10 years from now ("remember when i had a "cable" modem hahaha") MSOs don't know how to market web and next generation Internet services. When the marketplace opens up, it will take being a lot more net savvy than the usual MSO front office is today to allow them to prosper I suggest the US cable co's come to Canada and take a few lessons. (see my previous 2 posts) SHAW and Rogers are out marketing everyone else in the ISP business. As far as net savy, I agree they don't have much, but they are willing to spend. Its a question of learning curve I guess. Who can climb it the fastest. "DisAdvantages: The lines can be used by others and for other reasons and you generate no revenue (or perhaps loose revenue)." If, what? What did I miss? Have I been making the wrong assumptions here all along? What does your statement above assume? That ATHM owns the facilities? If so, please explain how you came to the conclusions that you did. If not, then I'd better re-visit my replies in this entire message. <smile> Thanks. I think you read to much into that... hehe. I know ATHM doesn't own the line. That's a disadvantage if open access on the line is feasible. If feasible open access would be great for the line owner. I defer to your technical skills on the subject of feasibility. Sorry for the rambling... just talking in my head and you get to listen. Regards Jay

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (19009)	1/18/2000 10:31:00 PM
From: Solid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Frank I sincerely tip my hat to you. You are one sharp gentleman. I have learned much from reading your posts and appreciate your participation. Technical concerns noted. Managerial and contractual concerns noted. Possible shoulds, coulds and oughtta's noted. Many of us have had concerns, as I have noted from you as well. I jumped on this thread as quite a star struck cheerleader. Ah, eyes focused, mind open, wallet exposed and time doth work its magic! Even my initial hormonal flush for this beauty has begun to mature. The reality of her now long-standing cohabitation in my portfolio has lent certain realizations to the relationship. I have seen beneath her skin and she appears mortal. But alas, she is still intriguing with a certain presence that I fear may not be easily replaced, present quirks considered. I'm still bullish and even optimistic, though in a sometimes-dazed kind of way. As one might feel who has landed a few blows, taken a few blows and yet still feels a thrill at being standing and in the ring with a contender. Is it @home I hear in my dreams, 'Adrian, Adrian!'? If you are willing to share it, I am curious what your position is regarding the status of @home as a shareholder. I catch the drift of your technological analysis but have not ferreted out a gut feel from you regarding your personal belief in what you think they can and will do over this year and the next as the company they are. I respect your views. Are you cautiously optimistic, disappointed and mildly pessimistic, darkly pessimistic or quarterbacking from the sidelines of you're living room with no personal financial commitment at present? If I have missed it somewhere, just point me to the post. Thanks!