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: BrooklynDave who wrote (2512)	6/4/1999 6:49:00 PM
From: nghi vu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4298

I think AtHOme must develop proprietary contents(eom)

To: BrooklynDave who wrote (2512)	6/4/1999 8:35:00 PM
From: vestor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4298

Doesn't T own 70% of ATHM ? So when they are hit we feel the pain.

To: BrooklynDave who wrote (2512)	6/4/1999 9:55:00 PM
From: Triffin	Respond to of 4298

T and ATHM ATHM ownwership 26% public ( us schmucks ) 74% every major cable co ( CVC,COX,CMCSK,TCOMA etc etc ) T now owns TCOMA's interest in ATHM The rational behind ATHM is pretty clear .. all the major cable owners could have developed an over cable ISP capability individually, but chose to pool their $$$ and share the risk of developing one .. namely ATHM except for TWX which with partners funded Roadrunner WGAT .. HSAC .. SOFN are all potential competitors to ATHM/Roadrunner but since the major cables cos are backing ATHM the others have to sell their services to the smaller cable operators There are two important aspects to the Portland ruling that I see .. T and other cable owners may have to make their 'facilities' available to the likes of Roadrunner, WGAT, HSAC, SOFN .. additionally any ISP may get the right to 're-sell' ATHM or other 'branded' cable ISP services .. If the traditional ISP's want in on cable access or xDSL access or wireless access for that matter; then they should buy their way in .. If they insist on common carrier status for the 'cable' infrastructure .. then the cable companies will have to be compensated for their considerable investments in upgrading their cable networks .. I'm a customer of @Home service .. I pay my cable company .. Cablevision ( CVC ) $38.50 per month for the service .. @Home gets about $15.00 of it .. Assuming I'm a typical user .. I could give two hoots about @Home's content .. I spend my time on SI and other sites from my bookmark file as I'm sure you all do .. The point of the fact is that if my cable company was offering Roadrunner service or Worldgate service or Mindspring via cable .. that's what I would be subscribing to .. The only real negative from ATHM's perspective is the issue of common carrier status of the cable infrastructure; A battle over this issue would take years to resolve and would certainly slow the rate at which cable-modem access services are rolled-out by ATHM's corporate owners .. ATHM would still be the dominant provider of cable i-net access in any event .. Jim in CT .. FWIW ..