[iwar] [fc:Excite@Home.shuts.down.AT&T.subscribers]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-12-02 00:05:19


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4000-1007489186-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 04 Dec 2001 10:10:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 23197 invoked by uid 510); 4 Dec 2001 18:06:53 -0000
Received: from n7.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.57) by all.net with SMTP; 4 Dec 2001 18:06:53 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4000-1007489186-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [216.115.97.162] by n7.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Dec 2001 18:06:29 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 4 Dec 2001 18:06:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 52526 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2001 15:28:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2001 15:28:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.125.69) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2001 15:29:00 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fB285Jq21758 for iwar@onelist.com; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:05:19 -0800
Message-Id: <200112020805.fB285Jq21758@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:05:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Excite@Home.shuts.down.AT&T.subscribers]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Excite@Home shuts down AT&amp;T subscribers

By Thomas C Greene in Washington

Posted: 01/12/2001 at 12:24 GMT

The US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California assented
Friday to Excite@Home's request that contracts with its broadband partners
be terminated. These include such heavyweight cable companies as AT&amp;T,
Comcast and Cox, all of which have hinted that without acceptable contracts
they may be forced to cancel service.

Judge Thomas Carlson urged all concerned to renegotiate their agreements
rather than pull the plug on more than four million subscribers, but stopped
short of ruling on the issue. "It's clear that continued operations have
substantial interests to the cable companies," the judge said.

Fair enough, but continued operations also have substantial interest for
Excite@Home, which entertains hopes of being bought by AT&amp;T at a fair price.
Thus far Ma Cable has offered $307 million for the struggling company, a
mere pittance, its creditors argue.

A great deal had been made about the possibility that services could be shut
down, but this is clearly in no one's interest. By threatening to
discontinue service, the company's partners/creditors might hope to pressure
AT&amp;T to cough up more generously, rather than be seen as the skinflint
suitor which cost millions of subscribers their service.

On the other hand, Excite@Home itself has warned the cable companies to
"negotiate new agreements acceptable to the company or risk the possibility
that the @Home service may be terminated."

So pretty much everyone is threatening everyone else with this dreadful
possibility, precisely because it's the ultimate failure from everyone's
perspective. 

Nevertheless, we've received reports of outages among @Home customers, and
one report of switching. "AT&amp;T switched us off of the Excite network this
morning, and we're now on AT&amp;T Worldnet Broadband," a reader in Portland,
Oregon reports. Outages for AT&amp;T customers have been reported in California
and Texas. 

According to the company, "Excite@Home announced today that it was in
negotiations with all of its cable company customers other than AT&amp;T
regarding arrangements for the continuation of Internet access and related
services. After determining that it would not be able to reach agreement
with AT&amp;T, the company terminated service to AT&amp;T."

It is of course potential buyer AT&amp;T which @Home most wishes to impress with
the downside of going suddenly off the Net. The question now is, for which
of the two companies will this stunt backfire with the greatest destructive
force? 

Only time will tell. ®

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
See What You've Been Missing!
Amazing Wireless Video Camera.
Click here
http://us.click.yahoo.com/75YKVC/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 21:00:00 PST