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 (10600)	6/6/1999 1:14:00 PM
From: Boplicity	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

re: You don't seem to mind the FED playing god with the economy. Do not put words in my mouth! I hate them playing with it. I look at the economy as if it is a natural system, where the ideas of natural selection and evolution should be applied to it. I would like the fed to disappear. re: One line for three different MSOs is more absurd than any of the positions yet considered. 1)Whose truck rolls? There own. 2) How are headends provisioned? Separate own my the individual companies. 3) What does this achieve? You still have the problem of ISPs and you still have the bandwidth problem plus a complex switching problem. I'm talking separate lines to the curb whole unique systems, so bandwidth sharing is not an issue. You pick your cable/broadband provider from three unique MSO,s you keep one line to your house the truck drives disconnects you from one the connects to another, better yet a mini network switch at each house. (just joking with you on that one) Heck if they put mini network/routers switches in the field we could route calls directly next door or with-in the subdivision with out going to the headend or CO. This is what T is going to do all most with their 50 home limit. ramble ramble not the car just my post <gg> Look ah, I don't see 3 MSOs happening, but it should of been set up this way in the beginning. When the electric company digs a trench, the phone company puts a cable right in the same trench, they have a an agreement, just like on poles, at least that's how they do it in Illinois. In the beginning there would of been three cables laid. In the future there would be more then one laid. I would love to see some company come along and lay glass to everyone's home, but it's too costly. If you saw my post to Frank I'm looking for technical reason why T shouldn't be forced to offer bandwidth for sale, if there are none, it becomes an issue of reasonable rates that can be charged. The bottom line ATHM is either dead money or going down till this issue is clearer. Greg

To: ahhaha who wrote (10600)	6/6/1999 2:06:00 PM
From: JAMES BORECKI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

ahhaha, <<The way this kind of issue was resolved as is evident in the legal precedents presented by the Portland defendants is that users like ISPs have to pay rent to maintain the facilities, but one operator is still the owner. There is an advantage in such ownership initially, but in time there is little added value in the physical infrastructure. The value is in what is carried on it. Does anyone care about who owns the Brooklyn Bridge?>> What if AT&T had built the Brooklyn Bridge and set up toll booths to pay for it and then AOL, and all other ISP's wanted to set up toll booths as well? Should T keep building the bridge? JimB