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 (9946)	12/27/2000 4:38:00 PM
From: EJhonsa	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 12823

IF the MSO does end up rolling out those spanking new CM in in the STB boxes, it won't be easy to justify it because what about current CM users? Does the MSO have to pay for both CMs?! One was hard enough at $40/month. If I remember correctly, Broadcom's cable modem chip, which goes into these boxes, costs roughly $50. Thus, if a cable operator wants to deploy new set-top boxes in order to offer non-IP interactive services, getting a box with a cable modem thrown in may not be prohibitively expensive. Also, I don't know how it goes elsewhere, but when I signed up for a cable internet service (via Cablevision), I had to pay the full cost of the modem. And you haven't addressed why anyone would want to surf the TV? I can think of three reasons: 1. For those who don't own a PC, a set-top box could be a far more inexpensive user-friendly medium. 2. The convenience of being able to watch TV and use the internet on the same screen at the same time, without all of the drawbacks involved with a PC/TV card being used on a computer. 3. The larger screen size of an average TV could be useful for streaming video applications (assuming that bandwidth is sufficient). It's already a strain reading web pages off my SVGA .28 dot pitch, non-interlaced, 21 inch, 1280 x 1024 resolution CRT monitor for any length of time. That's a good point; low-cost TVs tend to have display qualities equivalent to those of older 14" VGA PC monitors. However, most new TVs tend to be a bit better. Maybe the ISP would like the other 50 million US homes to connect using the TV, but that's about the only party that would be interested. And we all know how much money they have to roll this out(subsidize it for a MSO). Traditional TV advertisers would hate it and I know the MSO's don't want to lose them. I'm a little confused here; wouldn't proprietary interactive TV services upset these advertisers in a similar manner by taking away eyeballs? I know you can point me to all those press releases out of SFA, MOT, Toshiba, etc. saying how incredible their new mind blowing digital age STBs with built-in CM are going to take the world by storm. But show me one PR where a MSO has committed to turning their subs loose onto the Internet over the TV's STB(Keep in mind, i-TV and Internet surfing are different subjects). Isn't AOL Time Warner planning on offering AOL TV via Time Warner's cable lines? If they are, that could be one such deal. Here's a couple of lines from the AOL TV web site: aoltv.com AOLTV brings some of the most popular AOL features and services to members' TV sets, enabling them to access their e-mail, send instant messages using the Buddy List® service, chat and even browse the Web—from anywhere they watch TV. There's little incentive to turn the sub loose onto the Internet. Aside from monthly subscription fees, there could be some other ways to generate revenues. For example, whenever a user happens to be on the net, an ad could be placed on the bottom of the screen a la Netzero. Also, provided that privacy groups don't get too agitated, deals could be struck with internet advertising firms such as Doubleclick and Engage which allow operators to use information gathered by these firms to offer targeted TV ads. Now i-TV, well that's an entirely different idea. IMO, i-TV may become a reality. But that is entirely different from turning a sub loose, surfing the web, from his TV at his own free will. To many entrenched interests against this idea. You might turn out to be right about this. Most of the press releases I've read from cable operators do involve "walled garden" approaches to offering interactive content. However, given some of the events that have taken place recently, it seems that there may be a few mavericks out there willing to take a risk. Aside from AOL Time Warner, AT&T Broadband, with its huge stake in @Home and its telco-oriented parent, may also jump in. So might Charter, given Paul Allen's position in the company. Lastly, Microsoft may attempt to influence some of the MSOs that it's invested in to head this way. Obviously, the more applications that a subscriber uses a set-top for, the more it benefits Gates & co. As I said, it ought to be interesting to see how all of this develops. Eric Edit: Regarding the $40/month cost, FWIW, I remember reading some comments from Henry Nicholas (Broadcom's CEO) stating that, as HFC upgrade costs get paid off, cable operators will be able to cut access costs to $20/month.