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 (10633)	6/6/1999 8:30:00 PM
From: FR1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

Well I guess that is your point. The open access is a form of tyranny. Yes. The way I see it AOL has only one desire. That is to make government regulate prices. When politicians regulate prices they always go for the lowest rate to get votes. AOL is not interested in being a ISP. They want cheap broadband rates regulated by the government. They basically want T branded a utility. Like a pumping station for a water pipe. Portland has said that the city is in charge of deciding the rate T can charge AOL. This is obvious because, if the case stands, both parties will immediately come back to the court to ask Portland exactly, in dollars and cents, what the equal access rate is. T receives considerable revenue from ATHM subscriptions and ads that are seen by people in the city of Portland. T gets this compensation from its ownership in ATHM. So the remuneration that T gets is not from a simple contract with ATHM but much more complex. The city can not ignore this revenue. It is a fundamental part of T's payment. Portland has also put itself in charge of settling all disputes over what high tech hardware technology is to be used in a field that demands considerable technical expertise and changes every day. Basically, Portland politicians are now a partner in the engineering of the station. Contrary to what Portland says, this whole soup of decisions does directly effect the price consumers pay. If you change the wholesale pricing you change the retail pricing. Suppose you buy apples from me, the wholesaler, for $0.75 each and sell them for $1.00 each. I decide to bump your wholesale price to $1.25 each. Now, tell me you will still sell apples for $1.00 each. Portland has swept all these issues aside with amazingly cavalier statements indicating they felt there is really nothing to discuss. IMHO the situation has played out like this: 1. T bought ATHM. AOL wanted access to the pipe and said so in public. 2. Both T and AOL know that the real money is not in pumping photons through a pipe but in charging for the content going through the pipe (ad revenue, subscriptions, etc.). 3. T wanted a share of the pie if AOL used its broadband system. 4. AOL felt it was the 800 pound gorilla and said no. 5. AOL feels that the biggest content provider with the cheapest & strongest delivery system will win. 6. AOL feels it can get the government to regulate prices and, basically, turn T into a utility. 7. AOL currently has the Portland case. In addition, the 2 senators from AOL's home state have bills to do this. 8. While this was happening, T decided to buy TCI. 9. T directly confronted the FCC and said “No open access. We quit (no merger) if you want open access. We need to control access and prices. We need a part of the ad revenue. Either the FCC is going to regulate and build this network or we are. Choose now.”. 10. The FCC gave a fuzzy green light to T. 11. T figures the AOL deal is dead and it needs to get cash flow for ATHM. So T buys Excite to get positive cash flow, build ad revenue, develop a dial up base, etc. Both parties at the Portland case agree that this decision should be made by the FCC and the reason they are in court is because the FCC refuses to speak. If the Portland case sticks, every city in the nation, at contract time, will be in charge of setting ISP rates and arbitrating (thus designing) equipment upgrades, etc.

To: ahhaha who wrote (10633)	6/7/1999 1:29:00 PM
From: Daniel G. DeBusschere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

<<The outcome is what universities extol:socialism and what corporations prefer:monopoly>> Great observation. We need to add a final comment: We still have the best government that money can buy. I still think the court decision is correct as to the rights of the organization which granted a franchise to the cable company. I wonder how many offers have been received from investors willing to put up big bucks to get a franchise to string cable and sell open access and print money in the process. This is a no brainer. I think T loves this (or will love this outcome). Gee, I didn't want to do this but they made me do it. What better way to get a monopoly on the last mile?