SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Newbridge Networks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: zbyslaw owczarczyk who wrote (13552)10/7/1999 1:25:00 PM
From: pat mudge  Respond to of 18016
 
From today's LATimes:

<<<
SBC's $81-Billion Purchase of Ameritech Wins FCC OK

Telecom: Action allows creation of nation's largest local phone company. Conditions to promote competition accepted.
From Times Staff and Wire Reports

Federal regulators gave final approval Wednesday for SBC Communications Inc.'s $81.1-billion purchase of Ameritech Corp., <v>a deal that would bring together two regional Bell companies to form the nation's largest local phone company.

The approval includes an unprecedented set of 30 conditions aimed at promoting local phone competition in the regions served by Ameritech and Pacific Bell parent SBC and encouraging the development of advanced telecommunications services. The companies agreed to pay more than $2 billion in penalties if they fail to meet the conditions within a three-year period.

The combined SBC-Ameritech will have $46 billion in annual revenue and one-third of all local telephone lines, including the majority of lines in California.

The Ameritech deal is the latest in a series of acquisitions for SBC, which completed purchases of Nevada Bell and Pacific Bell in 1997 and the smaller Southern New England Telecommunications in Connecticut in 1998.

The approval by the Federal Communications Commission marks the last regulatory hurdle for the Ameritech takeover, clearing the way for the companies to close the deal, which was announced 17 months ago.

The conditions imposed "will really expedite the opening of these markets and ultimately the ability of these companies to get into long-distance," FCC Chairman William Kennard said.

SBC and the other regional phone companies are prevented by law from offering their customers long-distance service until they prove their local markets are open to rivals.
Kennard's view was not shared by Republican FCC members Michael Powell and Harold Furchtgott-Roth, who objected to imposing conditions on SBC.

"By this order, the commission imposes legally dubious, over-broad, potentially unenforceable, privately negotiated conditions on a merger that it is statutorily unauthorized to review," Furchtgott-Roth said in a statement.

As part of the agreement, the conditions will apply throughout SBC's territories, including in California, where PacBell has not yet won approval to sell long-distance service.

The FCC determined that the two companies, by combining their assets, will be a tougher competitor nationally and internationally, benefiting U.S. consumers.
"This is a great win for consumers everywhere," SBC said in a statement.

One key condition is that the companies must compete in 30 local telephone markets in the next 2 1/2 years outside the territory they now serve in the Midwest and West or face more than $1.12 billion in fines. They could face more fines if they don't sufficiently open their local phone markets to competition. SBC also agreed to set up a unit to provide high-speed data services to consumers.

Many of the conditions require SBC units to offer wholesale discounts to rival companies that want to lease lines and other equipment from the local phone companies.

A potentially important provision--especially in Internet-hungry California--requires SBC companies to give carriers that sell Internet connections through digital subscriber line, or DSL, technology discounted access to existing copper lines. That change will sharply lower costs for DSL competitors.

The combined company will also be required to set up uniform computer systems throughout its 13-state territory that will allow competitors to electronically sign up large volumes of customers and process other types of customer service orders. That's a key condition that will promote local phone competition, Kennard said.

"The company got what it wanted, and the FCC got a lot more concessions than most anyone expected," said Scott Cleland, managing director of Legg Mason Inc.'s Precursor Group. "The FCC and SBC got a big win today."
The companies and FCC staff in June had initially hammered out a series of 26 conditions. Faced with opposition from rivals such as MCI WorldCom Inc. and AT&T Corp., and consumer groups that said the conditions weren't tough enough, the companies in August revised the list. The conditions agreed to Wednesday resemble those revisions.
Shares of San Antonio-based SBC rose 88 cents to close at $51.81; Chicago-based Ameritech gained $1.31 to $68. Both trade on the New York Stock Exchange.

* * *

SBC Merger
A look at the $81.1-billion deal approved Wednesday that will create the nation's largest local phone company:
* SBC: Operates under the Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell, SNET, Nevada Bell and Cellular One brands. Has 52 million phone lines in its territory and 8.3 million wireless customers in the United States.
* Ameritech: Serves Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Has more than 12 million phone customers and provides wireless service to 3.2 million customers.
* New markets: SBC-Ameritech will enter 30 new markets within 30 months to compete with established local phone companies, including Bell Atlantic, BellSouth and US West.
Source: Associated Press



To: zbyslaw owczarczyk who wrote (13552)10/7/1999 3:07:00 PM
From: pat mudge  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 18016
 
Bell Atlantic CEO touts broadband

By Marc Ferranti
InfoWorld Electric

Posted at 10:50 AM PT, Oct 7, 1999
NEW YORK -- Bell Atlantic Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ivan Seidenberg on Thursday singled out expansion of broadband services and infrastructure as the company's most important goal, and said that telecommunications megamergers can be good, though not always, for businesses and consumers.

"We want to be your preferred broadband supplier," Seidenberg said in a keynote speech Thursday here at the Internet World trade show. "Broadband is Bell Atlantic's single most important initiative."

In its current coverage area, a major portion of the East coast, Bell Atlantic will roll out broadband Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) capability to 10 million of its 22 million customers by the end of the first quarter next year, and 20 million of its customers by the end of next year, he said. Though Bell Atlantic is intent on growing the broadband business in its current region, the pending merger with GTE, due to be finalized in the first quarter next year, also will help Bell Atlantic expand broadband coverage throughout the United States and abroad, he said. After the merger, GTE and Bell Atlantic together will offer DSL broadband capabilities to three-quarters of the major markets in the United States, he said.

As another example of how Bell Atlantic intends to deliver high-speed data services throughout the country, Seidenberg also noted that the company Thursday morning announced a deal with Metromedia Fiber Network (MFN) that will give Bell Atlantic access to MFN's high-bandwidth infrastructure across the United States.

For wireless data, the merger of the wireless assets of Bell Atlantic and U.K. company Vodafone AirTouch will further fuel Bell Atlantic's ability to get mobile customers hooked up to the Net, he said. The new company will combine Bell Atlantic Mobile, AirTouch Cellular, PrimeCo Personal Communications, and AirTouch Paging businesses. It will also include the cellular and personal communications services assets of GTE.

Asked whether such giant mergers will mean fewer competitors and fewer options for customers, Seidenberg said not all megamergers are bad, per se, for users. "We're dealing with global businesses, and we're dealing with massive investments for broadband," he said in remarks to the press after his keynote. "You need scale to make capital investments like that, and you need scale on a global basis to service global business."

With the need for scale, there will be "three or four or five major [telecom] competitors in the U.S.," he said. He added, however, that "three or four competitors in any area gives customers a pretty good choice." In addition, he said, with the need for telecom companies to generate greater revenue to make the kind of capital investments needed to expand broadband services, "no one market will support more than three or five competitors."

However, Seidenberg also pointed to the company's announcement Wednesday with 3Com, whereby the companies will together offer "a DSL-in-a-box" package in retail outlets in the northeastern U.S., to illustrate that the company is growing "both organically as well as through mergers," he said.

Asked about the proposed merger between MCI WorldCom and Sprint, announced this week, Seidenberg said that deal "will have to be closely examined." That deal concentrates both Internet infrastructure and long-distance services in a way that the Bell Atlantic-GTE merger does not, he said. The MCI WorldCom-Sprint deal, "in its current form," is detrimental for competition, he said.

In addition to broadband infrastructure, Seidenberg also cited network services as an important part of Bell Atlantic's strategy.

"Being an Internet company means more than just delivering pipes," Seidenberg said. "It means providing professional solutions that help customers manage their networks and ensure the security of their data."

Among the services Bell Atlantic will be offering are:

-- Virtual private network services, in conjunction with GTE;

-- Remote access services;

-- Web hosting, Internet access services;

-- Addressing business-to-business Internet capabilities with extranets, and network integration products.

Bell Atlantic Corp., in New York, at www.ba.com.



To: zbyslaw owczarczyk who wrote (13552)10/7/1999 5:13:00 PM
From: fumble  Respond to of 18016
 
A view of the future?

Today's NYTimes (Circuits Section) has an article describing an academic project involving 163 member institutions and a bundle of government money which got off the ground in 1997.

As Net Turns 30, the Sequel Is Still in Previews
Internet2, a Project to Link Universities With Fast Connections, Gets Mixed Reviews So Far

nytimes.com

The idea was to provide lots of bandwidth to academics who would then see what could be done. Perhaps the new 'killer application' would pop out of this experiment offering gobs of bandwidth.

Some excerpts:

The Promise:

About three years ago, a project called Internet2 began. It involves a a new high-speed data backbone connecting universities, much like the way they were connected in the original Arpanet. It is one of several attempts to steer a future course for the connected world, a reinvention of the Net meant to feed new technologies to the public eventually. But opinion is divided on whether it is the bridge to the 21st century or an expensive dead end.

The promise surrounding the new network held a definite appeal for those who joined. "Internet2 was built largely on a field of dreams -- if you build it, they will come," said Ira Fuchs, the vice president for computing and information technology at Princeton University, an Internet2 member. "The hope was that you build the infrastructure, make it available, and there will be applications."


The Result (so far):

Critics, on the other hand, say the project is falling short of its original goals, that it has little technical innovation to show for three years of work and that much of Internet2's prodigious capacity often stands idle. Further, they say, the expense to universities outweighs the project's usefulness to faculty and students.

Aside from an occasional burst of activity, which can make parts of the network run at as much as 100 percent of capacity, the usual utilization figure hovers around 1 percent.

Ribaudo, who oversees his university's technology purchases, held his university back from joining Internet2, and all of the peripheral expenses that go with it, when it started, and now he considers himself vindicated.

"I think I've been proven correct to buy the bandwidth as a commodity item from a provider such as MCI," he said. "It's a smarter way to go."


Why did Internet2 veer off into the rough?

It seems as though Bulk (IP) Bandwidth is a commodity and Internet2 in its present incarnation is not viable once the government subsidies are turned off.

The original documents (1997) all talked about implementing QoS. However, the equipment purchased was existing IP based routers.

see internet2.edu (22 Jan 1997) also internet2.edu

The current documents are STILL talking about implementing QoS. (see for example: internet2.edu

What is needed?

Perhaps they chose the wrong starting point (IP router based) instead of the technology with QoS built-in (ATM).

Perhaps a better view of the future is the Singapore End-to-End ATM network cited today by ZO (see the message this missive is attached to)