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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3299)	12/2/1998 12:40:00 PM
From: George Dawson	Respond to of 29970

Blurb on CNBC this AM (about 1000) describing @HOME current subscriber base (about 200K) and potential market or 12M. I missed part of it due to a sudden surge in the sound level in my environment. Can anyone add anything? Thanks, George D.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3299)	12/2/1998 4:34:00 PM
From: chirodoc	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

frank as usual you provide a very erudite explanation for your views in light of your view that this is a brick wall, not a speed bump, who do you think will solve this problem of cable systems not having sufficient capacity to handle the job take a company like ATT for example if they buy TCI that would give them cable and phone would that place them at an advantage relative to the cable only or tele only companies? do you think ATHM can handle the ramp up? curtis

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3299)	12/2/1998 7:20:00 PM
From: lnkennedy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Frank, you state this proposition as if T were not looking ahead with a plan to go total telephony, last mile or video. Is there evidence that T is that shortsighted? If so then can this not be cured by continued build out? I tend to see a continuing race for the hardware to stay ahead of demand while balancing the fact that to much build out ahead of the demand curve will only result in idle and obsolete capacity being employed. ...or unemployed as the case may be. lnk

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3299)	12/2/1998 9:08:00 PM
From: sillen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Yes, the cableco's are the gatekeepers and a potential problem for full market penetration. I personally think TCI and the alike was/is caught off guard by the digital revolution/high speed Internet access/interactive etc. The cableco's has yet to define what high-speed Internet access means. They are still struggling to figure out how to bill the ISP's using their infrastructure today. Since the cableco's didn't see the digital revolution coming and didn't believe in the Internet in time they now have to be defensive; by, charging the consumer more for less while their infrastructure gets more and more outdated. As the last mile "pipewidth" increases Internet/Phone/Tv will merge into one service and that is something the cableco's has to turn their strategies towards in order to stay competitive. As infrastructure prices come down upgrades will follow and maybe faster with a little help from AT&T. Then again who says AtHome can't partner with a company such as Level 3 for last mile access or am I totally off? Later Sillen

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3299)	12/2/1998 11:15:00 PM
From: FNS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Frank: Great post and astute technical remarks...is it possible for you to question ATHM , TCI, or T on this matter??? From a lay persons' perspective, isn't this a networking problem; i.e., peak processing crunch problem that ATHM and/or the cablecos should be modelling? and can it be modelled for the projected increase in traffic? Then the next Q is whether the existing architecture can be upgraded (band-aided) to fix the problem -- or must the architecture be re-engineered? or peculiar only to CA? Like the Y2K problem...you had better confirm if you do or don't have a problem, and if so determine feasibility of a simple fix or redesign - if time allows! (Thank God I don't have that problem anymore but I know companies that have not even begun to look at it!) Am long ATHM and concerned of the potential 'brick wall' impact might be on projected subscriber growth. FNS

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3299)	12/3/1998 7:02:00 PM
From: Robert Sheldon	Respond to of 29970

Our local cable provider (monopoly) is also a local and long distance telephone provider, and also owns most of the fiber capacity in the beautiful state of Alaska (and the undersea connection to the rest of the country and PCS service coming in 1999). The company, GCI (GNCMA) is basically the only telco in the country that has successfully wrapped all of these services together. Of interest on this thread is what follows: GCI saw that the traditional method of a 'Christmas tree' designed cable system would not be effective in a brave new world of telecommunications. So for entertainment (pun intended) they spent a whole wad of dough putting together a hybrid fiber/cable loop throughout the state's largest city. This will avoid capacity constraints in the future now that the loop can be upgraded with wonderful DWDM. So what does this have to do with ATHM! My point is that it is the responsibility of cable providers to ensure that their pipes have capacity available. In areas where several cable companies compete, ATHM will probably choose the one with the largest pipe available. This will probably cause those cable companies who are not seeing the ‘light' to upgrade. Thus the expense of the infrastructure will fall on the telco, not folks like ATHM. It will only be a matter of time before we will be swimming in bandwidth abundance thanks to companies like Uniphase (UNPH). Yes Virginia, this is only a speed bump. By the way I do not own ATHM . . . yet . . . so do not accuse me of bias.