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: gpowell who wrote (22672)	5/26/2000 8:54:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Each MSO can serve more than one region. As you know this isn't the case. Each region has a unique provider which has received a franchise from the local municipality to exclusively provide cable service. You must mean this in a way I'm not understanding. Are you proposing that this be the case? Straightforward, now let us introduce a network layer between the MSO and the regions. I know you're trying to simplify the situation so we keep our terms under control, but again I'm not understanding. How can there be a network layer between MSO which is a distribution network in a region and regions? This layer itself is partitioned into two parts, consisting of RR and ATHM's networks. Do you mean a physical layer where you have two separate networks or a virtual layer carried by one physical network? The DOJ decision prevents monopoly power of the network, but also makes the network layer transparent, because now each network partition is owned, principally, by the MSOs that "own" the regions the network serves. If this is true, then we can say the network layer vanishes as a separate entity from the MSOs. Therefore, there will be no competition at this level. Isn't that what we have now? Further, if there is no competition at this level, then there must be competition at a higher level, therefore this DOJ decision guarantees open access at the "ISP" level. I think this claim contains it. That's what I've been fumbling to say. GBarr and KB have tangentially said this too. The only question is, what is "it"? Obviously, the network level is too valuable for any one company to have monopoly power over it. The battle of the network level is over, and both ATHM and RR lost. They, particularly ATHM, created too much value. That's why I keep asserting this ridiculous notion of eminent domain. Whenever an environment of conflict develops that is unresolved at a lower level there is an appeal to a higher domain of authority. With this simple DOJ decree eminent domain has been invoked. By forcing Att to divest the government has created a region which is open to competitive access and thus since no region should have a state enjoying advantages that others don't, the others must be subjected to the same status and be made competitively accessible. Eminent domain requires uniformity of application. The default state is now competitive access because the domain is national and so there can't be these franchised regions. Please clarify and challenge the above.

To: gpowell who wrote (22672)	5/27/2000 1:06:00 AM
From: Solid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Hi G, What exactly do you mean with this? The battle of the network level is over, and both ATHM and RR lost. They, particularly ATHM, created too much value. I follow what the network is. I understand the value, the reason we are all presumably here beating our brains against one event after another. I understand the DOJ ruling clears the way for 'open access' not a big deal in my book. But... How does ATHM lose? In a way that limits our appreciation from share growth? I hope I am not wrong in my belief that our value has increased with the greater sub numbers and that the public perception will have to soon shift to athm's size. Am I missing something that is bad news for us? Thanks