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 : IATV-ACTV Digital Convergence Software-HyperTV -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Champolion who wrote (4224)	5/26/1999 9:39:00 AM
From: Jim Mulis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13157

Here's a topic alluded to by tdot over on the Yahoo thread. Question about actv participating in ppv by Fox. Doesn't seem likely to me at this time. I think it would be a difficult marketing proposition on such short notice, but could certainly happen down the road. Fox Puts Spurs Playoff Games on PPV By R. THOMAS UMSTEAD May 24, 1999 Hoping to capitalize on the success of the San Antonio Spurs basketball franchise, Fox Sports Southwest is distributing the team's home playoff games on pay-per-view beyond the local-market cable system. Fox, which holds the rights to Spurs PPV playoff games for the first time, will distribute the games to several AT&T Broadband & Internet Systems (formerly Tele-Communications Inc.) systems within the San Antonio market, network executives said. Although Fox Sports has distributed Spurs games on basic cable since the 1987-88 season, these are the first playoff PPV telecasts offered to systems in the outer markets of San Antonio. Paragon Cable of San Antonio had offered the postseason games exclusively for several years. "Tele-Communications Inc. serves a lot of bedroom communities within a 35-mile radius that will now have access to the games," said Spurs senior vice president of broadcasting Lawrence Payne. Fox will offer, via PPV, each Spurs home game not telecast by NBC. The over-the-air network was expected to distribute two games last week, and could offer as many as six if the Spurs advance to the Western Conference finals. Unlike previous years, when Paragon raised PPV prices for each playoff round, Fox and the Spurs will maintain a $24.95 price throughout the postseason, Payne said. With a potentially wider distribution base and the strong play of the Spurs, which finished with the best regular-season record in the National Basketball Association, Payne is hopeful PPV revenue from the games could approach record numbers. "I'm optimistic, but we'll have to see what happens," he said. Fox Sports Southwest general manager Jon Heitdke also said the Spurs' playoff run could be very lucrative for the network, the team and operators. "The way the team finished the season, and with it being the only professional sports team in town, it could be one of the most successful years for the team on PPV," he said. Although Fox and the Spurs did not offer regular season PPV games this year – mostly due to the players' strike, which shortened the season – Payne said it's possible the team could offer PPV games next year. Except for the Portland Trailblazers and the Houston Rockets, which are both distributing playoff games this year on PPV, United States-based professional teams have never offered pay-per-view or have dropped such telecasts over the past three years in favor of distribution via regional sports networks. "Until we've seen the schedule, we won't make any decisions," Payne said. "We've had some form of PPV since the mid 1980's, so it's certainly an option we'll consider."

To: Champolion who wrote (4224)	5/26/1999 10:15:00 AM
From: Mike Fredericks	Respond to of 13157

Champolion- As you noted, the paragraphs that caused so much trouble started with "I think" and "I believe". Hmmm... not quite. Paraphrasing the first paragraph I quoted, you said "I believe that Liberty and AT&T are not ready to bet the farm on IATV. I'm sure you noticed that AT&T and Liberty have invested in multiple competitors for IATV." Seems to me that you were stating that it is a fact that AT&T and Liberty had invested elsewhere, and after 2 days of avoiding a response you now finally admit that it's pure conjecture on your part. The fact that AT&T may have invested in other companies beyond ACTV seems to make sense. You're using the statement "Fact" in a sentence containing a hypothetical "May," and that makes your statement misleading. The fact is that AT&T has not said anything about having invested in any competitors of ACTV (although they have certainly invested in many other assorted companies.) MSFT invested in AT&T because that was the only way BillG could get anything. Whether MSFT investing in AT&T is as significant as it would have been if it had been AT&T investing in MSFT, I don't know. When do you remember a giant such as AT&T betting on a single solution? AT&T wants to lead this market. They do not care about who will help them reach that objective. IBM bet on MSFT back in the early 80's. The only competing OS they sold was CP/M and that was sold for 3 times the cost of MS-DOS ($50 vs. $150, and $150 was alot of $$ back then.) I will grant you that AT&T may not care about who gets them there as long as they get there, but you should not come onto a thread and make statements of "fact" that are patently false (regardless of whether they are "positive" or "negative" statements.) So, even if they [AT&T] did not brag about it. It does not mean they did not do it. So the evidence that AT&T did invest in other competitors is that they have not said anything?!?! True, it's possible that AT&T has some agreement somewhere under non-disclosure. It's possible that IATV has some as well. It's possible that I do. Still, you're guessing. Champ, it's not that you posted negative things about IATV here that bothers me. It's that you kept making statements of "Fact" about IATV that were very very very damning, when all along they were just guesses of yours. When someone (me) asked you to explain your statements, it took you two days, all along you maintained that your "facts" were the truth and that you just didn't have time to respond. All the while you were criticizing other people on this thread for not addressing your (fictional) concerns. During this time you post things like "Is Bridge paid to say nice things about IATV" (This isn't a penny stock where the company pays promoters in stock to hype the stock) and "The patents are only worth $12/share" (with no support as to why). My opinion is of no value here That's only true if you make statements that are deliberately false. Let me give you a hypothetical - had you, in your original post, said that "AT&T has that deal with MSFT and is using Wink for their interactive advertising, and, even though it hasn't appeared in any press releases, I think it's a reasonable assumption that AT&T may be working deals with still others in the interactive field." This would have clearly identified the difference between the facts and the opinions in your post, and would have given people on this thread the ability to discuss your posts rationally. Check out some of my past posts... when I posted all that negative stuff about the compensation plan, I quoted from press releases and SEC filings. When I said that IATV had a credibility problem with the release date, I quoted three SEC filings that all had different release dates. When I reversed myself on the compensation plan issue, I quoted the relevant passages from the 10Q that addressed my concerns. When other people have posted press releases from AT&T or other companies and implied that the press release involved IATV, yet IATV wasn't mentioned, I would question the poster why they think IATV is involved (because I'm wary of hype on both sides of the deal.) That's just my style, I like to think I'm consistent both ways. You posted something without support that turned out to be false and misleading. That's not a good thing. I encourage you to remain on the thread, especially if you are considering investing in IATV; however if you make future posts that are either in favor of, or against IATV, please clearly differentiate between what is a "fact" and what is your opinion, and when you are stating a "fact" please provide some support for it, especially when it's a "fact" that people here will not readily accept at face value? Thanks, Mike