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 : WCOM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jackrabbit who wrote (6284)	4/5/2000 10:30:00 PM
From: KevRupert	Respond to of 11568

MCI, Sprint Defend Merger Wednesday April 5, 5:12 pm Eastern Time By KALPANA SRINIVASAN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The proposed marriage between two of the nation's top three long-distance carriers had supporters and opponents jousting Wednesday over this question: What's in a name? When it's a brand name, it's important, say consumer advocates and others who are concerned that a proposed merger between the well-known MCI WorldCom and Sprint will curtail competition. MCI and Sprint officials say that names aside, there are hundreds of long-distance competitors that are making headway in attracting new customers. In a recent filing with the FCC, the companies asserted that even after their deal closes, 98 percent of Americans would have at least three long-distance carriers to choose from and 90 percent would have four. ``The genie is out of the bottle in terms of competition,' said Michael H. Salsbury, MCI WorldCom's general counsel, at a Federal Communications Commission forum on the deal Wednesday. ``The customer base is increasingly very well-educated, very price sensitive and very willing to switch carriers.' Several panelists still questioned whether that vibrant market really exists for residential consumers -- who may still lean toward the top three brands rather than a sea of upstarts. ``There is no doubt that the market is changing significantly, but one cannot disregard the market as it exists,' said Gene Kimmelman, co-director of the Washington office of Consumers Union. The Rev. Jesse Jackson of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition contended many consumers rely on advertising and name brands in making their telecommunications decisions. He added that competition between the three big-name players -- MCI, Sprint and No. 1 carrier AT&T (NYSE:T - news) -- has helped to drive down rates and spur new pricing plans. ``Sprint was seen as a catalyst to competition,' Jackson said. Sprint and MCI are ``talking at best about a market that is just beginning to materialize,' said Sandy Wagner, SBC Communications vice president for federal regulatory matters. SBC, the nation's largest local phone company, is seeking to get into the long-distance business itself within its calling region. But Salsbury and other officials said new competitors are garnering a strong foothold in the long-distance market, even without brand name power and that the entry of the local Bell companies into even a few states to offer long-distance would help drive down prices throughout the market. MCI and Sprint also touted their ability to provide new competition for the local Bell companies, if allowed to combine, and bring consumers more local/long-distance packages. That could mean additional savings for those consumers who don't make a large number of calls, officials said. Some panelists argued that the benefits of increased local phone competition could be achieved by the two companies independently or through some other arrangement other than a merger. Jackson also raised concerns that fiber used to roll out advanced telecommunications services was not being laid in low-income urban areas. He cited parts of downtown Chicago as an example. Jonathan Sallet, MCI's chief policy counsel, said the combined operation of the two companies would help hasten the delivery of Internet services to underserved parts of the country, using the high-speed wireless network the merged businesses would share.

To: jackrabbit who wrote (6284)	4/5/2000 10:44:00 PM
From: Jeff Hayden	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11568

- OT - Thanks for your reply JR, and no I'm not disappointed to hear you've made a bunch of money - that's good! However, you state, "But I am not blind to see that we are in a market mania that is totally unsustainable. It is an objective fact that the market has long since passed all time record valuations. The internet, wireless, digital, optics, technology etc. do not change the laws of economics." It may be an objective fact that the market has long since passed all time record valuations. What makes you think that's unsustainable or bad? There have been some real crazy swings in the market of late, to that I'll agree. But you know, if you average the Dow with the NASDAC, the rising market is pretty well tempered. It IS rising though. I think the totally unsustainable market mania is a subjective perception of yours and chinton's. Where is all the IRA money going to go if not to the market? Right now that money stream is a fire hose. and it won't abate for quite a while. When it does - then maybe the market's in for a dive.

To: jackrabbit who wrote (6284)	4/5/2000 10:45:00 PM
From: Mike Mullen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11568

RE: The internet, wireless, digital, optics, technology etc. do not change the laws of economics. Not so sure I agree with you there. As we move to an information economy where bits increase in importance and atoms decrease in importance I think the things you mention do present fundamental changes. If I sell you a car I no longer have that car. If I provide you with some form of information I still have that information. The things you mention allow this flow of information and have profound effects on its supply. This is not to say that I necessarily agree with current valuations but I do think that past metrics may no longer apply. -MM

To: jackrabbit who wrote (6284)	4/5/2000 11:54:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11568

He said the market is extremely overvalued -- hardly a unique observation -- and was met with flames and ad hominems instead of rational debate. Get it right. What he did was repeat over and over and over with - egregious misspellings to boot - his view. I enjoy perceptive counterpoints. He had none and was becoming increasingly offensive.