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: ayahuasca who wrote (21041)	4/19/2000 5:12:00 PM
From: JayPC	Respond to of 29970

AT&T in line for sweet deal on cable seattlep-i.com Other Internet choices would mean double fee Wednesday, April 19, 2000 By NEIL MODIE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER The King County Council might hand AT&T what it wants most in its county cable-TV franchise: a huge price advantage in the market for high-speed Internet access. After months of grappling with the issue, several council members are ready to let the telecommunications giant charge its cable customers a hefty fee to choose a competitor of @Home, AT&T's own Internet service provider. Several members will announce the compromise plan today. The deal would allow companies such as America Online to offer Internet access through AT&T's cable, but customers would have to pay @Home's monthly charge as well as that of the rival provider. AT@T, which acquired TCI cable last year, is installing fiber-optic cable lines in King County that give customers Internet service 50 to 100 times faster than traditional phone lines do. Councilwoman Jane Hague, R-Bellevue, said the company is to have it available to all unincorporated King County customers by June 1. Council members said yesterday that giving AT&T a financial advantage over rival Internet providers would avert a threatened lawsuit by AT&T that could delay service for unincorporated King County residents -- even though a federal judge has already ruled against AT&T in a similar case in Portland. However, if Portland and Multnomah County, Ore., prevail on appeal and require AT&T to open access to its cable, the proposed King County agreement would automatically impose the same requirement on AT&T here, council members said. Hague said the two-year franchise agreement also would require AT&T to make quarterly disclosures so that "we'll know what kind of business they're doing and whether they're working toward a monopoly, which is the thing we don't want to occur." But County Executive Ron Sims, an open-access advocate whose staff was left out of the council negotiations with AT&T, said of the proposed deal: "It's a monopoly by definition. If you have closed access, you have no competition." Councilman Dave Irons, R-Sammamish, who with Hague has been drafting the agreement, admitted that the agreement does not define what constitutes a monopoly "because you can't really define it." Mike McKay, an attorney for Internet service rival GTE, expressed anger that the council is proposing the plan only two weeks after 10 of its 13 members wrote to AT&T and its competitors, urging them to negotiate a deal among themselves so that the council would not have to impose a solution. McKay said he sent a letter to AT&T officials, agreeing to negotiate, but never received a reply. "And now I find out that (council members) have been negotiating with AT&T while simultaneously urging us to negotiate directly with AT&T. "I do raise a question about the fairness of the process -- that AT&T has been at the table while others . . . have not," McKay said. Hague, however, said the council members never promised "that this would preclude our moving ahead with legislation." And she said AT&T is not happy with parts of the proposal. Irons said a key provision of the measure is that AT&T would have to agree to open Internet access to competitors here if they are required to do so in the Oregon court case. McKay accused King County Council members of being "willing to give up open access out of the fear of litigation even though a federal judge has already ruled in their favor" in Oregon. Sims questioned whether the proposed agreement meets the standards recommended by a panel of experts appointed by the council last year. The experts said the franchise should encourage vigorous competition in high-speed Internet service and not interfere with consumer choice. Appointing the panel and studying its findings have given the council members a respite -- 14 months so far -- from having to choose between requiring open cable access from AT&T and risking a lawsuit, or letting AT&T keep control of its cable. P-I reporter Neil Modie can be reached at 206-448-8321 or neilmodie@seattle-pi.com

To: ayahuasca who wrote (21041)	4/19/2000 5:28:00 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

ATHM is upping estimates for subscribers from this point on, but are also increasing estimates for expenses, which is in direct contradiction to guidance given last quarter, and guidance I received from investor relations a month or so ago. I've been bagged. Year 2000 Financial Outlook In addition to its first quarter results, Excite@Home announced today its expectations for financial and operating performance for the remainder of 2000 and beyond. The Company stated that its goals are to have a total of at least three million residential broadband subscribers by the end of 2000, growing to six million subscribers by the end of 2001 and ten million subscribers by the end of 2002. The Company also stated that it is intensifying its investment efforts outside North America in an effort to capitalize on the growth of broadband access and media services abroad. As a result of these international investments and increased marketing and network investments intended to support an accelerated rate of broadband subscriber growth, the Company expects to incur operating losses in 2000 totaling between $0.25 and $0.30 per share for the full year. These losses exclude the amortization of goodwill and other intangible assets, as well as the cost and amortization of distribution agreements and certain other non-operational gains and expenses. The Company also stated that its goal is to achieve annual revenues in excess of $2 billion by 2002 and that it intends to achieve long-term profitability.