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 : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (20352)	6/5/1999 1:02:00 AM
From: ISOMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41369

Last I heard, Ralph Nader was seen cruising to Mexico in his Corvair.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (20352)	6/5/1999 1:14:00 AM
From: Ed Forrest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41369

Lets go for it.By the way,I have @home thru Cox cable in Oklahoma City and have no problems.Its your TCI thats the problem.I've had them and your right ,they suck. Ed Forrest

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (20352)	6/5/1999 1:18:00 AM
From: Rhino Ray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41369

Lets Write!! - BTW, I have had business dealings with TCI and they are less than third rate. They are the most mixed up disorganized, incompetent, people you could ever deal with.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (20352)	6/5/1999 3:01:00 AM
From: Mike Torrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41369

Those are the last three people, probably on earth, who I'd write concerning opening up cable/broadband. When you invite the government to legislate on matters such as this they tend to want to legislate (read "regulate") more than what you asked for. This decision came from the courts. In my opinion that's where we want this handled.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (20352)	6/5/1999 7:18:00 AM
From: Mick Mørmøny	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 41369

Judge Says Local Officials Can Force AT&T to Share Cable Lines By MATT RICHTEL The New York Times, June 5, 1999 nytimes.com In a decision that could have far-reaching implications for consumers and the telecommunications industry, a Federal judge in Portland, Ore., ruled yesterday that a local government could force the AT&T Corporation to share its cable lines with competing Internet service providers. The case has represented one front in a battle that pits AT&T against a coalition of Internet service providers and consumer groups that assert that an emerging source of high-speed Internet access, cable modems, faces monopoly control. The decision yesterday, involving Portland and the county of which it is a part, may not have any immediate practical effect because AT&T does not offer cable modem service in Portland and the ruling does not bind AT&T or other cable operators elsewhere. But analysts called it a blow to AT&T and said other cities could be prompted to follow Portland's lead. Mark C. Rosenblum, vice president for law for AT&T, called the decision "inexplicable," arguing that Portland and the county are beyond their legal authority in requiring open competition. He said the company intended to appeal the ruling, which was issued by Judge Owen M. Panner of the United States District Court. A parallel battle is being waged in Washington, where America Online and other Internet providers have been lobbying regulators and Congress to require cable companies to offer high-speed Internet subscribers a choice of service providers, without advantage to any one. The Federal Communications Commission has taken a wait-and-see attitude, but some analysts said the Oregon ruling would force regulators to act. "The court's decision is going to force the F.C.C. to admit there's a pink elephant in the parlor," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm. About 30 million American homes have Internet access over conventional phone lines, called dial-up access. About half a million gain access over cable or phone lines that are 10 to 80 times faster than typical phone connections, and research firms project that the number of such high-speed subscribers will grow to 10 million to 16 million by 2002. The Portland dispute had its genesis in June 1998, when AT&T announced its intention to acquire Tele-Communications Inc., then one of the largest cable companies in the nation, with 14 million subscribers. In a seeming rubber-stamp maneuver, hundreds of municipalities around the country needed to authorize the transfer of TCI cable franchises, which had been granted locally, to AT&T. But in the Portland area, consumer groups and Internet service providers urged politicians to challenge the deal. They asserted that AT&T should not be allowed to use TCI's cable lines to offer Internet access exclusively through the At Home Network, a cable modem service provider that is partly owned by AT&T. The Portland City Council and the Multnomah County Commissioners voted in December not to approve the franchise transfer unless AT&T agreed to allow competing providers to offer high-speed Internet access over its lines -- just as local phone companies must connect to a variety of long-distance providers. Cable companies argue that there is little incentive for them to undertake the considerable capital expense of upgrading their lines for high-speed Internet connections if they are merely to become a pipe through which others deliver service. But in his ruling yesterday, Judge Panner wrote that AT&T had "no contractual right under the franchise agreements to exclude competitors from the cable modem platform." Scott C. Cleland, managing director of the Legg Mason Precursor Group, a Washington-based firm that advises institutional investors, called the decision "very significant" and said it could embolden other cities. "While the marketplace was looking at Congress and the F.C.C., the grass roots caught fire," he said. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Richtel at mrichtel@nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (20352)	6/5/1999 1:03:00 PM
From: Benkea	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 41369

"I know of at least one person who has discontinued @Home and switched to AOL." I would beg to differ that "at least" one person could be cited for going back to Yugo after driving his new Ferrari for a while. This is inconceivable. I have used AOL (free one-month - hehe) ONLY when I am going to be in multiple cities, and not only was it SLOOOOOOW, it SUUUUUUCKED. I was kicked off more times than you can imagine in that 3 week period. I have had cable access after dial-up, and I would have NEVER gone back to dial-up if I hadn't moved (no choice at new location). Finally after nine months, at least DSL is here. I would have taken cable over DSL, but again had no choice. But I would pay $100 per month for DSL or Cable access over dial-up. And AOL's content...I guess they have to call it something and four letter words are not good marketing :)