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: ahhaha who wrote (2969)	10/26/1998 10:23:00 PM
From: ERM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

<<You say, "open up cable plant to all comers". What does that mean? You think it is meaningful but you forget that cable and copper are different plant.>> I was responding to your comment that it would be beneficial to ATHM if cable companies were granted common carrier status. You can make any assumption you want as to what that means, but I don't see how it helps ATHM, although I understand your argument. <<ATHM's technological advantage is the Medin local replication. That idea does not exist in copper ISP distribution and so substantially the same declarations won't supersede patent jurisdiction. The cable operator can't transmit efficient broadband without the ATHM model, so ATHM still must receive compensation because the MSO is using the patented idea too.>> I confess I have no idea what the "Medin local replication" is. Could you elaborate? You seem to be saying that this patented process is the only way to efficiently deliver broadband. Can I then assume that your view is that Road Runner, MediaOne Express, and the third tier players (HSA Net, ISP Channel, OSS, etc.) are doomed to failure? Thanks in advance.

To: ahhaha who wrote (2969)	10/30/1998 11:01:00 AM
From: ERM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Re: your earlier statement: <<Medin local replication. That idea does not exist in copper ISP distribution and so substantially the same declarations won't supersede patent jurisdiction.>> Isn't "Medin local replication" another way of saying "caching servers", or is there more to it than that? Seems like I must be missing something, because copper based ISPs are also using caching servers. BTW, the recent articles referring to consumer groups complaints sure sound to me like they are advocating prior restraint of trade, which is an extremely high legal hurdle. Let's hope those in Washington see it the same way.