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 : Westell WSTL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Trey McAtee who wrote (8719)	1/1/1998 11:45:00 PM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21342

<one little piece of good news though...> While I see this as potentially good news for the Bells getting into LD w/o needing to unbundle/rebundle (if it holds up the inevitable challenges), it may also mean less local-loop ADSL competitive pressure from the LDs/CLECs/ISPs. I don't know what this does to the Supreme Court appeal. Seems if the RBOCs don't need even to unbundle to enter LD, they won't. The rebundling litigation would seem to be a non-issue, but you know this won't be the last chapter of this saga. Steve

To: Trey McAtee who wrote (8719)	1/2/1998 12:07:00 AM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21342

<A> AT&T/Telecom Law -2: AT&T Sees Appeals Ct Overturning Ruling [..What else would you expect them to say?..] BASKING RIDGE, N.J. (Dow Jones)--AT&T Corp. (T), responding to a federal judge's decision to overturn key sections of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, labeled the court's move "inexplicable and clearly erroneous." The judge's ruling would make it easier for the Baby Bells to begin offering long-distance service. In a press release Wednesday, AT&T said the decision upsets "the careful sequence Congress kept in place because it would apparently permit SBC Communications Inc. (SBC) to provide long distance service while its local monpoly is still intact." AT&T said because the Court's decision "is so plainly incorrect," it is confident the Court of Appeals "will review and reverse the ruling before consumers suffer any harm."