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 : Concurrent Computer (CCUR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Goodboy who wrote (6728)	1/29/1999 11:37:00 AM
From: Goodboy	Respond to of 21142

Since I have mentioned this issue lately, here is a piece of news that AOL and other ISP's aren't too happy about: January 28, 1999: FCC Rejects AOL on Unbundling Washington -- The Federal Communications Commission promised Thursday to monitor the broadband Internet-access market, but it gave nothing else to America Online Inc. in the Internet-service provider's quest to pry open cable networks to unaffiliated providers. The FCC, in a 5-0 vote, sent Congress a report that refused to delve into the issue of whether cable operators need to allow competing ISPs to reach their customers over cable lines they same way that they reach them over phone lines. AOL pushed for the FCC inquiry and FCC recognition that it had the legal authority to force cable operators to make their facilities available to alternative providers. AOL is concerned that cable operators will dominate the high-speed Internet-access market and discriminate against companies in which they do not have financial interests. The FCC is not expected to release the report until early next week. Commission sources said the document discusses the cable-broadband market, but it omits any discussion of whether the FCC would have the legal authority to force cable operators to unbundle their networks. - 1/28/99

To: Goodboy who wrote (6728)	1/29/1999 2:33:00 PM
From: Nimbus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21142

"CEO speak" You know better than to believe "CEO Speak" don't you ? I have some problems with your numbers. 1. 89 headends feeding 17m; that's 190,000/HE. Not likely, and with a server with a 1000 stream capacity, there will be many unhappy customers. Their numbers are suspect, but you knew that right ? 2. 5% penetration to a digital market; what does that mean ? If it means cable, then it's 5% of 90m = 4.5m STBs, and at 500 stb/day = 9000 days = 24 years before ITV is offered. These are using the best numbers you provided. If I look at the worst case (10% and 300), the introduction would 82 years off. Their numbers are suspect, but you knew that right ? BTW; 82 years is 4264 "weeks" (The CEO might need that for the next CC). I'm confident he could do it in this matter of weeks. SFA admitted they have not even one customer using interactive, sticktly a digital conversion step at this point. Please make corrections to your post, because we only want the truth here you know. We can't have Father Goodboy misleading the sheep now can we? Look, 99 is a trial year for VOD with only a few systems from various players being trialed. I can wait.

To: Goodboy who wrote (6728)	1/29/1999 6:31:00 PM
From: The Ox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21142

tm want's numbers, so I'll play along and throw out the numbers that goodboy posted, only using the data provided in this post: Let's start with the simple stuff. 30-50 STBs per day. Only 8 live systems = max 6 or 7 per day per system. SFA says 33 systems installed currently, so when the other 25 systems start their utilization we can assume the daily demand to be at least 4 times 50 or 200 STB's per day. Since we don't have complete data I will make assumptions based on Goodboy's post which could be way off but since all we have is this data, it will have to do for now. We don't know if the 89 head end systems are included in the 33 end to end systems but for this post let's assume they are NOT included. As these systems ramp up, we will see additional demand. Lets use the same assumptions from above and figure that when all 89 systems are working that another 500 STB's will be rolled out per day. Now we are up to 700 per day X 6 days per week = 4200 STB's per week. I'm not going any further with this but I wanted to throw some numbers out, regardless of their accuracy. With 17 MSOs, I think it's safe to assume that there will be a lot more then 125 head end systems. So, pick your own estimate numbers and plug them into your favorite assumption formula! I think it's easy to see that daily demand for the STBs will grow quickly and I doubt SFA would be making 10K per week if they had any reservations. Anyone else want to play the #s game??? best regards, Michael

To: Goodboy who wrote (6728)	1/30/1999 3:52:00 PM
From: Don Hand	Respond to of 21142

Using a little reverse logic it could be a win - win situation for SUNW and ORCL to win a few VOD sites. If CCUR beats them on price performance and then successfully executes the contracts they win then it would NOT make sense for the cable operators to continue to purchase the SUNW systems. On the other hand if SEAC and SUNW sell higher priced systems in a multiple vendor market then CCUR should be able to sell their systems at a higher price for those later contracts. Both ways will be profitable. Perhaps it is just coincidence but it seams that the stock hits the days high on most Fridays in January. SEAC was due to announce earnings last week and has not yet. CCUR is due on Monday the 8th. Maybe someone thinks the "Phone Call" will come on a Monday. If the SFA CEO said that the cable companies could turn the services(did not say which services) on in weeks then; What is the lead time needed to build the VOD servers PS: I would love to see the Sun and Oracle system. I have worked on Sun with the regular Oracle database. This VOD is probably very expensive without a fail over. I had a Sun processor fail just this week on a relatively new system and the server crashed (application server not database) This, I got to see.