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: KailuaBoy who wrote (22664)	5/26/2000 4:07:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

I agree from a different perspective, a "tops down" perspective in contrast to your "bottoms up" perspective. Only GBarr know what he thinks, but we sure hope he'd comment. It is the DOJ "shouldn't mess" that's at the crux of the matter. Essentially, the DOJ has broken up the possibility of cable BB monopolies which opens the door for a free market and competitive access. Previously there was separate domains and now there is one imminent one. It may seem hard to see how this can be extrapolated from the DOJ action, but I believe that's what's solidly implied. Otherwise, Att has been subjected to discrimination if the others don't have to operate under the same ruling. If it holds for some property, it must hold for all properties since the properties are not differentiable except by ownership.

To: KailuaBoy who wrote (22664)	5/26/2000 5:13:00 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Why would TWX/AOL pay anything to T? T must divest and there will be no buyers for what TWX/AOL will own anyway All due respect KB, but aren't you forgetting that Mr. Softy owns part of RR as well? If I were Mike I'd dangle that 25% in front of Steve until I got exactly what I wanted out of the deal.

To: KailuaBoy who wrote (22664)	5/26/2000 6:30:00 PM
From: GBarr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

<<What is the value of any stock that MediaOne might have in RR? If a third party bought the MediaOne interest in RR they would only have purchased that percentage of RR until whatever exclusive contracts that are in place expire. Upon expiration TWX/AOL would be incented to dissolve RR and take control of the TWX/AOL footprint outright. Who would purchase this temporary control other than TXW/AOL? Why would TWX/AOL pay anything to T? T must divest and there will be no buyers for what TWX/AOL will own anyway. Maybe transferring control of RR will be part of a AT&T TWX/AOL telephony deal. In exchange AOL may get access to T footprint for Internet access.>> There may not be any interested buyers other than TWX, but a 30% stake in a privately held company is still worth something. My point, however, was trying to figure out whether T had any options at all here and hence leverage to get favorable terms. I would suspect the shareholders agreement (or similar agreement) would allow TWX, MSFT and Compaq all to purchase the MediaOne interest upon divestiture or it may simply give the right to TWX. <<When AT&T divests RR TWX/AOL will dissolve any contracts that prevent them from operating in TWX footprint. The contracts were drawn up by UMG and TWX before the AOL bid for TWX. Take UMG out of the equation and TWX/AOL get rid of RR and brand high speed Internet in TWX territory AOL Broadband. Or they keep the RR brand and it serves as just what it is....brand.>> The point I was trying to get at was not whether the contracts would be dissolved after TWX bought out T (of course they would), but whether T had the leverage to get out of the exclusivity agreements as part of the divestiture for if AOL wanted out as well, UMG has a bargaining chip. It does not necessarilly follow that because T sells its stake the exclusivity provisions expire. For example, that would not be the case if one of the MSOs sold their interests in ATHM. However, the contracts themselves may have an out in the case of a DOJ divestiture. <<UMG won't have the right, if it exists, after they divest. Even before they divest DOJ has made it clear that they shouldn't mess with RR. I read the DOJ decision regarding RR as "disolve your mutual interest in this thing called RR and each of you take your cable plant and go your separate ways. If you want to get together in the future and do anything you must get our permission first. Now SCAT!">> Again, I was wondering here about T's leverage to get favorable terms upon the divesture, but I think your decription of the consent decree seems correct from what I've read. <<I read divest as meaning they lose any control including exclusivity.>> With respect to the proposed consent decree, remember only T is a party to it so it is not binding at all upon TWX or RR and therefore by itself may not effect the exclusivity rights of RR. However, the press release is pretty vague on the details of this decree .