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 : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SOROS who wrote (1416)	1/4/1999 11:18:00 PM
From: Voltaire	Respond to of 41369

Soros, Hard to argue against what you say about them building it. You are right but I would not mind seeing a ruling falling in our favor. Now you can't blame me for that. Voltaire

To: SOROS who wrote (1416)	1/4/1999 11:21:00 PM
From: Stock Watcher	Respond to of 41369

S - appreciate the post-forwarding on the telecom group; but, have you seen the 98' revenues for QWST ? Phenomenal/they also absorbed LCI and continue to grow at a super-rapid pace. AT&T hit a 52 week high today, so investors are realizing that Ma Bell is still the major player in the industry and will probably remain the mother of all phone companies...your point well taken.... On AOL they seem to be leaning toward PC telephony which circumvents all wired systems, and will probably end up with Hughes or Loral reselling them satellite phone time...AOL could end up being a telephonic communications center unto itself....who knows ?

To: SOROS who wrote (1416)	1/5/1999 1:12:00 AM
From: FNS	Respond to of 41369

SOROS: Regards to internet co's ganging up on T/TCI, something smells here. Isn't this supposed to be a free enterprise society where government is supposed to keep out of the way and only monitor against monopolistic control? Due to the rapid pace technological advancements it appears that many companies are relying on 3rd and 4th generation FCC guidelines to protect their asses ... knowing full well the product life cycles of their 'business assets' run the risk of obsolescence in 1-3 years by their peer competitors. So with high speed telephony and new broadband technology being implemented, why should an aggressive company be penalized for implementing new technologies that are competitive and cost effective, regardless of the affect on other competing technologies??? Did IBM get where it is today because they were Mr. Nice Guy? Therefore, I give Gates and Ebbers credit for pushing hard and wading through through all the bureaucratic 'regulations'(?). In regards to the prerequisites for approval;, i.e., by 1/4 of the franchised cities, the statement sounds contradictory. >>The merger has received approval from the U.S. Justice Department and is expected to take place in the first half of this year. But besides the Justice Department approval, about one-quarter of the cities where TCI holds franchises must also approve the change of control, a TCI spokeswoman said. Recently, lawmakers in Portland and Multnomah County, Oregon, ruled that AT&T and TCI must provide open access to its network to competitors as a condition of franchise approval. But AT&T and TCI argue that the local governments do not have the authority to set such conditions.<< OK, then why does the TCI spokeswoman say 1/4 of he cities have to approve??? Confused! I assume that the cities can't use the TCI/ATHM bundling as showstopper criteria, per T/TCI 's argument. Comments appreciated. FNS