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: axial who wrote (8979)	10/23/2000 5:59:24 AM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 12823

Jim- One wonders why ATT/Mike Armstrong has become the company of the year for the media to hate? What we need is another political scandal to refocus their attention on something more useful.<g> Pathetic how they go around like a flock of sheep writing opinions to appear as facts. -MikeM(From Florida)

To: axial who wrote (8979)	10/23/2000 9:26:48 AM
From: justone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Jim: Actually, I think Mike is in a strong position, if he does it right. The important thing to the consumer is ONE BILL for all services, with bundled pricing discounts. Also, one point of content would be nice. Now it would be nice if ONE BILL came from one company. But with the proper "branding and licensing" agreements (ONE BILL enforcement clauses), then breaking up ATT might improve their chances with other cable companies without sacrificing the ONE BILL. The ATT service company could provide the ONE BILL and one point of contact for customer care, and have cross licensing agreements with the various "ATT-lets" for wireless, long distance, and cable. He can also more easily make content agreements for things like VOD. Meanwhile, he 'break ups' ATT, makes the street happy, increases shareholder value, and generates cash for the cable multi media roll out. So I will be looking to see what the licensing agreements are. If I were on the board, I'd go for this. They haven't asked me to join yet though.

To: axial who wrote (8979)	10/23/2000 12:02:23 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

What should we expect? Instead of investing the bulk of T's resources in next gen platforms they elect to spend 110 Billion Dollars on a 1950s technology that is on its last leg. Yes, okay... they are on the tail end of upgrading it, but even so... imagine what one could have done with 110 billion dollars from scratch? WINFirst could answer that question in a flash. In the meantime, companies that weren't even detectable by radar two years ago are now perched to take over voice... which is still the only serious -- some would say "The" Only - money maker in the telecom universe, today. Voice is a cash cow. The reason it's lost its appeal is because it doesn't meet the street's demanding criteria for "growth curve" performance. Not because it isn't profitable. We live in a weird time with dictates that are seemingly strange, at times. In the meantime T (and its properties, and others who are influenced by their decisions) and everyone else who committed their companies future to the fate of the bubble hype is waiting for the advertising model (and other components of the phoo phoo generation's <which is independent of when one was born, all can apply, and most have> regime) to come to fruition. It just ain't gonna happen. So, what does T do? They propose to once again split themselves into four different companies.