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: FR1 who wrote (10609)	6/6/1999 5:32:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

I have selected several passages out of the legal brief which touch upon the issue you mention. ATT/TCI would violate the open access condition if it failed to provide equivalent access, but not if it failed to use a particular technology to provide the access. (We presume, by the way, that ATT/TCI will raise no issues as to the defendants' right to require non-discriminatory charges. Those issues have not been raised before and would have no substance, because the provisions of the Cable Act limiting rate regulation apply only to rates charged to end subscribers.) This is a giant hole in the city's argument. The term "particular technology" admits enough interpretation such that T can drive a bulldozer through the local loop. It is part of what I said about negotiation. Give them what they insist, not necessarily what they think, since they don't know what they want. It is also consistent with my executive admonition that you never give the customer what they want. You give them what you want and what you can profitably create. I believe T can do this with Portland as long as they don't take a confrontational position. T should give them what they think they want. The Cable Act explicitly protects local governmental authority to adopt ordinances for consumer protection and customer service. Section 632, 47 U.S.C. §552. As the Charles River case suggests, it has long been understood that preserving competition is a critical part of consumer protection. T argued that the building of another bridge was different than accommodating all traffic on the same bridge. Portland rejected that argument on hearsay grounds in a manner similar to the above statement that competition is achieved through protection, protection of competition, that is. But that is hogwash. It was that same kind of protection that brought about cable tv monopoly. You have to teach capitalism in school. This nation teaches socialism so you can hardly expect anyone to understand what free market competitive capitalism is about. You don't even get much comprehension in the corporations since they all hate competition too. The outcome is what universities extol:socialism and what corporations prefer:monopoly. Portland is trying to recreate unintentionally the disaster of cable tv. They are following in the old steps. Their arguments remind me of Vietnam. The deeper in you get the murkier is the outcome. Their arguments use the law and precedents to achieve the complete opposite of the intent of the law, of precedents, or of the '96 Act. It proves that what the '96 Act enables is the exact opposite of its intent and suggests the Act will have to be repealed. There is no assertion that I could find where they are attempting to regulate prices in the sense I think you mean as long as pricing doesn't interfere with what they think open access means. Well I guess that is your point. The open access is a form of tyranny.