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: BomboochaBoy who wrote (4151)	1/11/1999 6:24:00 PM
From: lnkennedy	Respond to of 29970

It also requires serious install a lot more than putting a 33-cent stamp on a disc. With all the BB that's coming, ways will be devised to use it and then some. Keeping the demand for more fiber up, ala gblx, wmb, and lvlt. Isn't it just possible that the discussion re voice only, then becomes moot. If you want voice w/o video you'll use your el cheapo flat rate digital phone ala nxtl etc. If you need heavy hauling of data or face w/ voice then ATHM/T is it. Love this board the education here is reflective of BB capability, a lot of everything with more applications than appears at first blush. good investing,lnk.

To: BomboochaBoy who wrote (4151)	1/11/1999 7:11:00 PM
From: Roger Bass	Respond to of 29970

On the subject of this post, and other topics, here's a link to a Jermoluk interview on CNet. >> Rather than fighting a losing narrow-vs-broad bandwidth battle with AOL, ATHM would be wise to join forces and form the next generation media company. << >>>That would require guts. news.com It's quite interesting on the AOL discussions - here's one quote: America Online wants access to your service, and they were one of 17 companies that filed public comments on the AT&T-TCI merger in general. What's your stance on that at this point? You negotiated with AOL earlier in the year on a possible deal. Yeah, not just earlier in the year--we negotiated with them for the last year and a half, trying every way possible to come up with a commercial deal offering them everything from we'd resell their service, we'd integrate content, we'd basically share the user base in some way. But they are just clinging desperately to their old business model they want to have complete control over the user. They want to have 100 percent of the control over the subscriber and they want to have 100 percent of the programming interface, which is to their portal. And that's simply not a very attractive proposition for a cable company, or AT&T, or ourselves, to become involved with. It limits choice for the consumer, it limits choices for programmers and puts all of the power in the hands of AOL. And we're simply not interested in doing that...and the best argument on our side is it's not in the interest of the consumer.

To: BomboochaBoy who wrote (4151)	1/11/1999 7:30:00 PM
From: E. Graphs	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

Here's another one dated Nov 13, 1998.... news.com >>Jermoluk said he welcomes a partnership with AOL to cobrand content or to develop some way for each company to leverage the other's strengths. >>"There's an opportunity to gain customers here together, there's an opportunity for me to make them more profitable by cutting out their modem minute network charges, there are opportunities for us together to make other revenues and transaction revenues," Jermoluk added. >>He argued that what he sees as AOL's wishes to control the entire network are, at this point, unreasonable. @Home would rather not partner with AOL at all, he added, than become the company's "dumb pipe." >>"They [AOL] want to have 100 percent of the control over the subscriber, and 100 percent of the programming interface--and that's simply not a very attractive proposition for a cable company, or AT&T, or ourselves to become involved with." <<