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 : AT&T -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Palmberg who wrote (2340)	5/6/1999 12:27:00 PM
From: CGarcia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4298

From the AOL thread: Message 9357572

To: Mark Palmberg who wrote (2340)	5/6/1999 1:00:00 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 4298

I saw Michael Armstrong address this antitrust issue yesterday at a Townhall luncheon here in Los Angeles yesterday, which occurred shortly after his CNBC interview yesterday. Undoubtedly, Michael would not being moving forward with this transaction unless he believed T had a likely chance of success surmounting any antitrust concerns that would be addressed by the FCC or Congress. Issues raised by special interest groups opposed to execution of T's plan to compete for local access were an obvious given. Michael provided the some background of the regulatory landscape under which the MSOs are currently operating. In particular, he cited the temporary suspension of the "30 percent rule" following the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down as unconstitutional certain provisions of the regulation on 1st Amendment grounds. Notwithstanding he explained the mechanics of how the percentage calculation is determined & how credits, or as he referred to, "attrition," is applied for investments held in other MSOs or sub-contractors, to lower the percentage & the possibility of selling off certain assets that would be necessary to pass muster of any Congression/FCC conditions. He expressed faith that T was acting consistent with the intent of Telecommunication Act of 1996 -- to bring competition to the local loop -- that the nation's telephone customers have yet to see. The way I see it, any argument asserting a monopolistic market is utterly misplaced with respect to telephony. This is Michael's first & foremost objective in acquiring HFC plant. His core business strategy is to establish a HFC footprint to support & complement T's long distance network. Beyond that, it is provide a complete package of data, voice & video services to the home, & to provide wireless access to such services when the customer is away from home. IMHO, there is enough flexibility in his strategy to accommodate most concerns raised by critics. Steve Case, for one, should embrace what opportunities T may offer AOL instead of crying to Congress every week. T obviously values AOL's significant customer base & would be willing to offer AOL access over it HFC pipes at market-competitive price in exchange for certain access to AOL's customers. This is business. This is modern-day competition in the high-tech industry in which major competitors often partner to deliver to a more complete integrated product or service to the customer. There a many lessons to be learned from Michael with respect to how he orchestrated the UMG transaction & was able to provide offer a positive solution to CMCSA & its SHs. Steve Case should be the first to take note. I think the overriding benefit of introducing competition over the local loop will preempt any arguments regarding over-consolidation within the cable industry. JMO.

To: Mark Palmberg who wrote (2340)	5/6/1999 2:03:00 PM
From: LTK007	Respond to of 4298

My commentary and the Knox story,is price up about 8 points in 2 days---this is the investors with 20/20 farsight,and not "bean-counter" an inch away 20/20 sight---I have held this over 5 years and endured the incompetence of Andersen,and now am so pleased with Armstrong,who has taken T from dinosaur status to Tiger status in a short time--what a huge difference Armstrong has made.Max90

To: Mark Palmberg who wrote (2340)	5/8/1999 12:57:00 PM
From: Jon Stept	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4298

Mark, AOL owning cable media without govt intervention is a dream... The idea that any company can be dominant in a transmission media without government regulation and intervention was refuted when AT&T was broken up in the 80's. More recently, no one company can transmit power over a transmission medium either. AT&T can own the plant, the government will regulate it. Government regulates competition over power and phone... they will regulate this too, otherwise or any company that owns the cable plant would price gouge. AOL will be providing service over this cable. It would be nice if AT&T got into bed together to before the government regulates their relationship. JMO Jon :)