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: KailuaBoy who wrote (10359)	6/4/1999 11:50:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

Do you see this ruling as significant? I did six months ago but not now. By Corey Grice Staff Writer, CNET News.com June 4, 1999, 12:00 p.m. PT Although the case addressed whether the city had the authority to impose the open access requirements on AT&T, Panner also wrote in his decision that AT&T and the former TCI have no contractual right under the franchise agreements to exclude competitors from the cable modem platform." Panner did not specifically address the merits of open access as a policy, however. "The issue is whether the city and county have the power to require access to the cable modem platform as a condition of approving AT&T's takeover of the cable franchises. To resolve the legal issue, I don't need to consider whether the open access requirement is good policy," he wrote. "I conclude that the open access requirement is within the authority of the city and county to protect competition." I agree with the judge. What has that to do with a "free ride"? This community has stated they want things just so. They have every right to require terms of access as a condition to admit T's incumbency. T might not be willing to deliver under those conditions. The city will then have to get another vehicle to supply broadband. Maybe they will go land based wireless instead. This ruling doesn't change the dynamics of broadband rollout...ie. Big bucks upgrade + need to recover Big bucks = no free ride for others. This claim is nonsense. Maybe T believes it, but given the number of mistakes T has made. you could believe that they would express that they need to recover investment in that way. Their entire policy is exclusionary and not in T's best interest. Armstrong is a fool and is repeating the disaster of Brown under Ma Bell. This doesn't even approach the technical aspect of how it would be accomplished. Correct, There are other ways and there still is the intermediate market solution that will come first. This is how I see it - Broadband deployments (cable, XDSL) are being spearheaded by cable companies. DSL is the pet of the RBOCs. It represents the near term competitive alternative to cable. Cable companies can't get anything out of it. They aren't situated. Their networks are cable, not copper. Phone companies have no incentive to deploy these services. You should say that until recently there were disincentives for them to deploy. That isn't the case now as SBC can tell you. Take away the incentive to fund the upgrades by mandating ISP welfare and you take away the upgrades. Don't get hyped up with Armstrong's spiel. T has no choice whether they have incentive or not. T's incentive is the company's survival. You look at the Oregon ruling as a negative. I don't. T makes more money by allowing open access on anyone's terms. If I were Armstrong I would accept whatever Oregon decided, because there are far more money making possibilities that way. You have to open your mind and resist the stupidity that makes you believe that creating benefits for others somehow reduces your own benefits.