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: ERM who wrote (2930)	10/23/1998 10:03:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 29970

It is hopeless to anticipate what the FCC will end up doing. I don't believe that whatever they do, it will have a lasting effect on ATHM. I have faith and that is the chief reason I hold. Most of the concern arguments since the IPO were methodically refuted by me. Most of the sentiment was against what I was stating because the contrary position supports the fear syndrome abetted by the Mighties. It was Ahhaha against the affirmation of the superiority of DSL by MSFT, CPQ, TXN, INTC. So why isn't AOL pushing DSL? Same reason NSCP can't handle MSFT? How could nobody contend against the gods? The answer is simple. They're wrong. There is no reason to concern yourself with guessing about what fools will do. You either hold on faith or you sell. It is the nature of the upside to invent 1000 reasons why you should sell. As long as that persists, not only do you not sell, but you add to the position. Kennard doesn't know what he's talking about. He is illiterate about these issues. To place any credence in flippant comments made by him is a mistake. He says, "gain access to networks", not the content of the servers in the network. Does he mean that AOL should have a key to get into the server room? Do you get the point? His usage of "gain access to networks" is ambiguous. Let's assume that he means if a customer who has TCI-pulled HFC wants to gain access to AOL content at high speed, will TCI allow that? Let's assume also that Hindery says that's ok. Now if Kennard says that TCI must provide free access, he is in left field. Won't happen. Users must pay the operating overhead. ATHM has a distribution model critically dependent on ATM backbones, caching subservers, RDCs, special headends, and other equipment that enables rapid local multiple replication. In order for any ISP to use those premises, they will have to pay rent. The rent goes partially to ATHM and partially to the MSO on every replication. AOL wants to use the network then all those millions of their subscribers and their usage will have to ante up. AOL will have to pay and assess their customers accordingly. Now, what were you talking about when you imagined a threat? It is in AOL's interest to cut a deal with ATHM in order to get a minimal charge on usage in exchange for providing a tiered multimedia access to special services. As I stated earlier ATHM has the unbeatable distribution model. It can be imitated, but that will take time, resources, and the kind of relation, Telcom company-MSO-ISP, necessary to compete directly. I believe that will evolve, but long after ATHM is well-established. The common carrier characterization was termed ROW by me. Right of way. I meant that if an RBOC owned telephone poles, they could string their own HFC circumventing any need for common carrier status. If the fiber was pulled next to MSO fiber, you couldn't demand access if you were another competing local RBOC if we are talking about broadband services alone. With respect to voice, precedent would supersede this alleviation and you'd have to provide equal access just as is done over copper. Surprisingly, the second RBOC couldn't demand the same from the MSO, because a competitive equivalent under current interpret already exists. The problem with common carrier status within the internet environment is that the internet is inseparable local and long distance. The current FCC interpretation of the Telcom Act is that they must remain separate but equal. Thus, up to voice it is illegal for ISPs to carry voice. Please tell me what is going to be changed? I'll tell you. The Supreme Court will throw the entire Telcom Act into the fairness trash can in order that government can survive. When common carrier status hits the can with the other trash, then the RBOCs can start creating their own local fiber networks or they can buy existing MSOs. My point wasn't that ATHM customers gain access to AOL. The tail doesn't wag the dog. AOL must find a way to get access over ATHM. The only thing AOL has is momentum, a large customer base. They are a telephone company oriented technology. They are at the mercy of the telephone companies. Because of that technological status, they can't demand common carrier access to different communications technologies. Again, that would mean to realize local and long distance non-differentiation, because AOL could demand equal access on, say, wireless. How would the FCC control local and long distance in that case? Are you starting to see that as long as the current interpretation of the Act has the local-long differentiation, AOL is locked out of any regulatory relief? They have to get away from the telcos. They need the cable and ATHM model. They would have to make a hostile takeover of ATHM at $200/shr before 3/31/99. Case already thought of that, but he knows that the MSOs won't sell. I wouldn't either and I'm not.