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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FR1 who wrote (253)	10/14/2000 4:36:55 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 24758

How does it matter? AOL will have to comply with what is unavoidable: OA. AOL can't improve their position with the FTC. The FTC isn't a corporation and this isn't a deal. The FTC will rule and AOL will comply or walk. So there is no bargaining chip. This is kind of the same problem that occurred with ATHM. When Portland was a hot topic, Portland City said that all ISPs should be allowed to have the same financial contract with T that ATHM has with T. That's what Portland said, but that's beyond the purview of the FTC. The problem with this reasoning is that this means all the ISPs must turn a sizeable amount of their stock over to T because that is part of the payment beneift that T has with ATHM. Is this sentence true? If it is, I can't understand it. Att and ATHM don't have that kind of arrangement except by a later incentive agreement to push Att to perform upgrades. How could Att require that arrangement of other ISPs? Other ISPs only need to pay rent to Att to maintain the facilities. I'm sure other arrangements are possible, but they would certainly be negotiated. Why would or could Att demand more? Is that what makes for a good operating partner? AOL can do whatever they want. They are free to shoot themselves in the foot and they seem to try to do this at every turn. The company is truly American. They advance by failing.