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: SteveG who wrote (8830)	1/8/1998 9:43:00 AM
From: SteveG	Respond to of 21342

<A> WSJ: U.S. Asks Judge To Put Telecom Ruling On Hold By Michael Schroeder Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department asked a Texas judge to put on hold a controversial New Year's Eve ruling that overturned a key part of the 1996 telecommunications law and would allow regional Bell companies enter the long-distance business. Separately, U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall in Wichita Falls Wednesday approved a motion filed Dec. 30 by Bell Atlantic Corp. to join in SBC Communications Inc.'s suit challenging the act. But he also denied a similar motion by Ameritech Corp. filed on Jan. 5. In its filing to the district court Wednesday, the Justice Department said it plans to appeal the ruling and, as expected, asked Judge Kendall to stay his decision until a higher court completes its review. If he rejects the stay, the Justice Department will seek one from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which would hear the government's appeal and is likely to approve a stay. The government says it will seek an expedited appeal, which would take three to seven months, according to federal officials. Several long-distance carriers, including AT&T Corp., Sprint Communications Co. and MCI Communications Corp., and trade groups also have asked for a stay and plan to appeal. The Justice Department, representing the Federal Communications Commission, said Judge Kendall's ruling would "radically reshape the comprehensive legal framework crafted by Congress in the 1996 act." SBC, based in San Antonio, and U.S. West Communications Inc., which joined the suit, have vowed to quickly enter the long-distance business. SBC Wednesday filed a long-distance rate plan with Oklahoma regulators-proposing rates at around 14 cents a minute-and asked state officials for accelerated approval. The company pledged to offer service within 30 days. In its suit, SBC said the law made it harder for the nation's five Baby Bells, which were spun off from AT&T by a 1984 court order and include Ameritech, Bell Atlantic and BellSouth Corp., to offer long distance than it did for other local carriers, such as GTE Corp. The law forbids them from selling long distance within their regions until they open local monopolies to competition. The Bells argued that Congress unfairly singled them out for punishment. Judge Kendall agreed, saying that provisions of the law restrict the Bells' ability to enter new markets. "We certainly weren't surprised," by the Justice Department's actions, said Royce S. Caldwell, head of SBC's telephone operations. "We're disappointed because we think it delays competition." --- Stephanie Mehta contributed to this article

To: SteveG who wrote (8830)	1/8/1998 9:51:00 AM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 21342

<A> AT&T Expected -2-: May Join Up With Cable In Broad Alliances There has been recent speculation that AT&T would make a direct investment in one of the big cable TV concerns, such as TCI, along the lines of Microsoft Corp.'s recent $1 billion investment in Comcast. But so far that hasn't panned out. A likelier outcome is that AT&T joins up with cable carriers in broad, strategic alliances. One possibility might be the At Home Corp. service, a strategic Internet alliance backed by TCI, Comcast and Cox. Another possibility is Time Warner Inc.'s rival RoadRunner service, which includes other cable partners. Some industry observers say collaborations between long-distance carriers and the nation's cable TV companies are a natural, given the inherent synergies between the two. AT&T has the network know-how and marketing savvy that cable operators covet, while cable-TV companies have the direct links, via their coaxial cable networks, into millions of homes and businesses that AT&T sorely needs. It hasn't hurt that neither views the other as much of a competitive threat. Unlike its Baby Bell offspring, AT&T has never expressed an interest in going into the video business. Cable operators, likewise, have dabbled in offering telecommunications services to business customers, but never have been very interested in going after the consumer long-distance market, AT&T's bread-and-butter.