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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7898)	8/5/2000 7:37:53 PM
From: Mkilloran	Respond to of 12823

MikeM54321 the DCT-5000 is also being sold to other MSO's in large volume. Many more settop boxes being installed Vs cable modems. About 4 to 1 settop boxes over cable modems. Look for digital cable/satellite internet convergence to expand faster than cable modems and DSL. kagan.com High speed conections - the last mile. It's all about what the consumer will connect at the end of the line. Everything digital...tv,phones,pc,digital music, security systems, internet smart appliances,interfaces with wireless devices, etc

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7898)	8/6/2000 7:37:47 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Why would ATT take a solid revenue generator like cable TV and risk losing millions in advertising revenues while their subs play around on the web? It makes no sense. I'm of the opinion that MSO's want interactive. . . But they don't want to let their subs run loose all over the world instead of the passive couch potatoes they can blast lots of advertising too. Mike: IMHO, you paint a much patronizing picture of MSOs that ought to be taken, IMHO, in this era of convergence & increasing competition among providers of connectivity along various platforms. FWIW, I am of the view that he who adheres to the old business model & loses sight of the bigger picture, and thereby new avenues of future revenue streams, is doomed to see shrinking market share no matter how good the execution. When you talk of "cable TV" I presume you speak of the vast amount broadcast content now sent down an MSO's pipe. We all know that today's model is based upon revenues received from advertisers who place commercials juxtaposed among the content carried by the cable operator. Advertising fees are paid to production companies who originate the content. These companies, in turn, pay fees to the cable operator to carry their content & the appurtenant advertising. In addition, the local franchise sell space directly to local advertisers who are interested in reaching their immediate market of broadcast viewers. Obviously the MSOs are tickled pink to deploy digital services that will allow the cable broadcast industry to gain access into every subscriber's home to gather data on their viewing habits and gain a glimpse into expressed preferences evidenced by upstream responses to onscreen prompts. As we know, this in turn will lead to more targeted advertising, along the lines we begin to see today on the Web. More targeted advertising MAY lead to higher advertising rates. I say "may" because I question whether the reduced size of this targeted segmented market is sufficient to make up for the more targeted advertising. To illustrate, in the past, an advertiser may have had to pay a very high fee to purchase a 30-second spot on a major network such as NBC, that reached a broad cross section of viewers depending upon the content (the show). Today, instead, that advertiser has umpteen cable channels to distribute its message, and a multiple of that in terms of potential content within which to purchase space. So, instead of purchasing, let's say a single spot, today (or tomorrow) that same advertiser, in order to realize the same "hit rate" might have to advertising on 3 separate channels covering different, but more narrow demographic cross sections and advertise on as many as 8-9 different shows. In the aggregate, how much better is the MSO? IMHO, it is debatable, and inconclusive at this time. Time will tell. And to be weighed here is the capital expense of an improved infrastructure along with the added layers or tiers of players who play a part in reaching that consumer (ie. TiVo, WebTV, AOLTV). Parallel to this digital broadcast frontier is the Internet, which has led to more participatory "viewing" by a segment of our population who are more inclined to be active rather than passive in their "viewing" or online time. IMHO, the MSOs realized this new market early on, or at least appreciated it before the telcos did as evidenced by some early rollouts of cable modem access. The MSOs did not necessarily view this strategy as cannibalization of its core broadcast viewership, but an expansion thereof, and the ability to capture a new fledgling market of subscribers that would otherwise have been lost to other access providers. But for the cable's industry's entry into the cable modem access business, IMHO, they would have been positioned to experience dwindling viewership as demographics point to lost subscribers who instead spend their leisure "prime time" hours online rather than in front of the TV. For these reasons, I believe T's broadband strategy makes a whole lotta sense.