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: E. Davies who wrote (8918)	5/2/1999 7:33:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 29970

It isn't worth much. These people look at these things as though it were a game of Monopoly or some Hollywood conception of how the world works. Ever since MediaOne was put in play by Comcast's $48 billion bid in March, there have been serious doubts about RoadRunner's survival. They talk as though this is significant. RR is not a company. It is a name. ATHM is more than a name. Basically what this means is that regardless of whether AT&T or Comcast ends up with MediaOne, AtHome looks likely to wind up with MediaOne's 5 million-plus customers. AtHome currently has more than 700,000(?) subscribers, compared with RoadRunner's approximately 200,000. Why does a listing of ownership imply that? Although Comcast's exclusivity agreement expires with At Home on June 4, it is unlikely that even if Comcast were to lose MediaOne it would throw itself in with a weakened RoadRunner. Non sequitur. Armstrong, yesterday voiced doubts that any offers would beat his unsolicited $54 billion bid. How would Armstromg know what his opponents intend and why should this author assume Armstrong is right about his guess? As analyst Cynthia Brumfield of Broadband Intelligence in Bethesda, Md. says: "This power struggle between top cable operators could give Microsoft the firm entrée into the industry that has thus far eluded the would-be cable power. If Comcast wins, Microsoft wins." It does nothing of the sort. What is an entree? This is word casting. Does this person mean that MSFT can finally become a content provider? beef up MSN? sell CE? Protect its investment? Play an ego game? How about none of the above. If Comcast wins, Microsoft wins." MSFT may benefit from their investment, but it is difficult to see how they would benefit otherwise. The investment is two cents to MSFT. This person is an analyst? If AT&T wins, however, Microsoft loses. How is that? Not only would AT&T become the biggest player in the cable market--the combined networks would make its cable systems available to more than 26.5 million U.S. homes and increase its footprint in Boston, Los Angeles and Atlanta, where MediaOne has a third of the market--but it would also get MediaOne's lucrative local telephone access. This author apparently thinks the above is proof that MSFT loses. Huh? Seems to me I can find only how MSFT wins. That is true for everyone else too. I guess that wouldn't be true in a game of Monopoly. At Home's chairman, Thomas Jermoluk, was coy about whether AT&T's acquisition of MediaOne would result in a merger but did say yesterday that it would be a way for the two broadband providers to "harmonize." Which says what? which proves what? Here is a fool being led by a clown and the public reads this swill? He also said that any discussion of a merger between the two would not be discussed until after the MediaOne situation has been resolved. What's the word? Duh! One thing that is not likely to be an impediment to a merger between At Home and RoadRunner is the legal system. According to Eben Moglen, professor of law and legal history at Columbia University Law School and an expert on antitrust law, the government would not step in to prevent a merger, even though such a deal would create a veritable monopoly on high-speed Internet access. "It's an embryo market," he said. "And broadband is not indispensable, so control of it is not a concern. At least not yet. The FCC always says wait a few years and then does something--maybe. That's the way the regulatory game is played. It raises some interesting questions, such as what if down the road the dominant cable owner also becomes the only supplier of connectivity?" I hope you realize why I sneer at the professors. They are a disgrace to logical thinking. First our dear professor states that the legal system isn't likely to be an impediment, and then gradually segues to assert that the opposite conclusion is stronger. The fact is that the professor hasn't a clue and is just guessing. She is giving unsupported opinion based on a Thrasymachus "might is right" type assumption, a bet that the big money wins. That's the whole drift of this article. She doesn't know these issues finely enough to venture any sort of guess. That is proved by the flip flop. I have given this thread an accurate assessment of the regulatory issues, and the meat of the matter is not solely built on the potential for cable monopoly. The anticipatory rigor so far applied over the last 50 years to any dominating company has established a precedent that if dominance can be extrapolated in any way to end up in excess aggregation, then regulatory authority will immediately take steps to preclude that outcome. Months ago I explained why the FCC would be frozen from action against creating stifling conditions on the T-TCI merger even though that merger moved in the direction of excess aggregation. For the very same reasons that froze them will force them to thaw against the union of ATHM and RR under one roof. As Brumfield points out: "It's a sui generis problem. There are no existing precedents." I'll bet the prof would disagree. They both ought to go back and read legal precedents of the 19th century railroads or telegraph. Whatever the outcome, the company that ends up owning MediaOne is likely to control the broadband cable sector. Hey, wait a minute. If Comcast wins, how does that mean that T-TCI-ATHM will then be a minority player? TCI is by far the largest MSO and ATHM wrote the book on cable. T and ATHM on their own and separately are building worldwide presence. The onus would be on Comcast and partners to come up to snuff and that would take many years. Like I said it is in T's interest to have this effective distraction. It keeps the competition at bay, it keeps T from over extension, it enables ATHM to swallow all that they have bitten off, it keeps the regulators quiet. ATHM's stock price is valued on the assumption that RR will evolve to be an effective competitor. This is desirable. When will all the air heads understand this? May the richest company win What a long distance Americans have come from "all powers to the peoples". It isn't so significant that socialism is a total bust, but it is significant that the above expressed attitude brings about a reaction which undermines the prosperous future. I'll bet 20 years ago that this person would never believe what was written above. When pressed they always say that wealth and winning is not so good, but then they must be pathological liars. When you are one, you go down the drain because you never know or understand anything since all that you think is a lie.

To: E. Davies who wrote (8918)	5/2/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: Educator	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

"Basically what this means is that regardless of whether AT&T or Comcast ends up with MediaOne, At Home looks likely to wind up with MediaOne's 5 million-plus customers. At Home currently has more than 700,000 subscribers, compared with RoadRunner's approximately 200,000. Although Comcast's exclusivity agreement expires with At Home on June 4, it is unlikely that even if Comcast were to lose MediaOne it would throw itself in with a weakened RoadRunner." Eric- Thanks for the post. At the end of March, just a tad over a month ago, it was reported that @Home had over 460,000 subscribers. According to the Forbes article(dated April 28, 1999), Charles Dubow reports @Home to have in excess of 700,000. That is an increase of 240,000 subscribers in one month! Are his numbers accurate??? If there is any truth to that, the one million mark is a cinch by year-end. Heck...it's even possible by the end of the second quarter at this rate! Comments anyone? Is that possible, or is it another writer's screw-up? No matter what you say, subscriber numbers are important to Wall Street. There was a cloud of doubt hanging over ATHM on April 13th. It wasn't so much the earnings, as it was the subscriber base. Investors wanted ATHM to make an even bigger dent. If those reported numbers are even close to being accurate, it's another reason to hang onto those ATHM shares. Ahhaha- Your last several posts were excellent. I especially liked the comments on "short trading." I bookmarked that one. It is frightening actually, as I'm beginning to comprehend your "highly technical" posts. I must still have a few active brain cells.:0) Ed