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: Bob Zacks who wrote (2822)	9/18/1998 9:16:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 29970

As you well know we discussed this into the ground long ago. It is a non-issue. To make any claim about how much it cost to install a subscriber is ridiculous and meaningless. Also, it isn't meaningful to compare two essentially non-competing technologies on a questionable per cost basis. You have read my many comments asserting DSL is a peripheral player. Like AOL it isn't a competitor of cable. DSL and AOL are more synergistic to cable although just about no one wants to believe that. For argument sake let's say I will charge @Home $175 per 2 man hour to install. Average installation time is 2 hours. That's $350, at the margin. In one year that cost will be $200. On top of the raw installation cost there are the usual account setup marginal costs, amortization, operating overhead including advertising made by either @Home or the sub-contractor. It all adds up to $100-$150 per. That's where the $450-$500 figure comes from. On the other hand DSL is extremely difficult to assess because it requires all kinds of infrastructure adjustments due to the fact that interference and distance from CO are critical factors. The $3000 per claim is a bit high. Mass installation would approach $1500 per. In places where the wiring is properly shielded and there is a short haul (under 1 mile) to the CO, costs can be in scale comparable to cable. However where cable costs per will fall, there is no way to get DSL costs down below the maximum expected per cost for cable. The RBOCs would have to take the risk that that spruce goose will fly en masse; it is totally unrealistic to expect that. That's why they have dragged their feet hoping MSOs would develop the alternative, cable, and avoid the losses when the spruce goose crashed. Some RBOCs have taken the plunge anyway, but there has been no wide adoption of it. Those players will benefit because they will have the knowledge to install DSL where cable doesn't go. The only other viable means of transport is wireless. Wireless in major scale won't make it for decades for various reasons. It may never be developed as a major distribution method because the economies of scale available to wave guides, cable, continue to increase, Cable technology is way ahead of what is usable now. That won't be the case when ubiquitous full motion video is the norm. By then advanced cable technologies will take up the slack.