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: ahhaha who wrote (9248)	5/7/1999 4:57:00 PM
From: rel4490	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

T has a frightening conflict of interest being the major stockholder of ATHM. In dividing the ultimate profit pie a much larger slice may go to T than to ATHM.

To: ahhaha who wrote (9248)	5/7/1999 5:25:00 PM
From: vor	Respond to of 29970

athm down 5 in afterhours @152 3/4 eom

To: ahhaha who wrote (9248)	5/7/1999 6:25:00 PM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

I will be expanding on this thesis, but I need criticism and objections from everyone. If you really mean "from everyone," I will give you my comments. It is hard for me to be critical, because I agree with everything in your post. However, such agreement would add nothing to your thesis, so I will comment on the following. Say AOL wants access. They go to T and say, we'll sponsor, provide our stock as collateral, to issue revenue bonds to HFC upgrade x quantity of installations, in exchange for access in this market amortized at a rate proportional to yield/term on the bonds. Although that makes sense to me, from AOL's perspective they might not be willing to contribute to infrastructure enhancements, prefering to lay back and hope to become a new media provider that can stand on their own, playing a similar role as HBO or MTV plays to cable. In particular, Pittman's background might slant his thinking that way. The advantage for AOL is that they could profit from the content side, while letting T bleed red in the infrastructure. The disadvantage is the risk that they would be left holding the bag while others produced content just as rich. One danger of having developed a successful MTV is that the entire world might look like another potential MTV. BWDIK

To: ahhaha who wrote (9248)	5/7/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: Xenogenetic	Respond to of 29970

Pardon me ahhaha, but have you ever considered storytelling or narration as a career? I did a search for you at Amazon.com but I came up empty so I assume not. You could give James Earl Jones a run for his money. You have a serious vocabulary. For those scoring at home, ahhaha gets triple points for using the words gerrymandered and hegemony in a relevant manner in his post. And keep on posting to ATHM 'cause I was grumpy when you were gone. Rock on.

To: ahhaha who wrote (9248)	5/7/1999 9:33:00 PM
From: E. Davies	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

Your plan is based on the assumption that limited resources infrastructure buildout is the primary limitation in reaching new customers. I'm not so sure that is true. AT&T has already proven it has far more access to cash than AOL ever could imagine. Excluding TCI's foolishness doesnt it really appear that there is simply a finite speed that people can develop complex things regardless of how much $ is thrown at it? As an example, look to how the speed of signing up new subscribers is limited by the number of qualified installers. I can see the argument makes sense in the realm of building cable into new areas where the density is significant enough to justify it. But isnt that really primarily in business areas? AOL wont get much benefit from that, nor the RBOC's. How many places are there that have not been cabled because the return wasnt there that would have a decent return now using the cable for BB? What happens when the infrastructure is built? Does AOL et al. still get free access? Isnt a cleaner solution the one that everyone with common sense has been suggesting all along in one form or another, that the ISP's and @home work out a joint marketing agreement. $40 to use @home, $5 a month extra if you want AOL. Or assuming you could resolve the technical issues of multiple ISP's over the wires why not just have AOL to pay $x/month/customer for access to the wires. The profits would go into building infrastructure anyway, wouldnt they? The only reason AOL doesnt want to go this way is that they think that they can force the regulators to keep the price down so AOL can make a government controlled profit. Eric