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 : Winstar Comm. (WCII) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pkwknk who wrote (3807)	2/11/1998 11:30:00 PM
From: Steven Bowen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12468

I think we'll move sooner rather than later. Still looking for 45 by mid April. FWIW, I have entered all of WinStar's markets, populations, and licenses into a spread sheet, planning on valueing them based on the LMDS auction. Just playing around, I broke the markets into 3 groups like the LMDS auction has; less than 100,000; 100,000 to 1,000,000; and greater than 1,000,000. I then just guessed some channel pop values; first shot used 50 cents for the less than 100,000, $1.00 for the 100,000 to 1,000,000, and $1.50 for the greater than 1,000,000. This gives a valuation of WinStar's licenses of $1.2 billion. I then upped the value for the greater than 1,000,000 to $2.00 per channel pop and get a value of $1.55 billion. I think these values will be in the ball park, and maybe a little conservative if anything. A value of $2.50 for the largest markets, as we've talked about for years, gives a license value of $1.9 billion. Granted, the analysis is a little rough at this point, but I think it gives an idea of what we're looking at.

To: pkwknk who wrote (3807)	2/12/1998 12:19:00 AM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12468

<...this co remains extremely underowned..> I agree. As before, FC shows 27% inst. owned, but IS reports, as of 12/31: 25 "A" rated (A+, A or A-) mutual funds owned 2.7MM shares 45 Advisors own 7.8MM (Pimco LP owning 1.2MM) 10 Banks own 826K 5 Insurance Cos own 525K ------ 11.8MM (not including lower rated funds) = ~35% I agree that we will drift side/down sans news. A lot of SOES sell activity today, trying to shake out short term-weak longs. CLEC consolidation continues: Message 3409389 And an inquiry to NBMO's Vogel as to the possibility of a bid from WCOM resulted in a strong positive... from that I would presume (but will inquire directly) as to the advantageous fit with a QWST/Level3/AFCI etc. I'm also interested in Grubman's view on potential suitors. And the regulatory drama plays on: ======= <A> Judge Delays Immediate RBOC Entry Into Long Distance WASHINGTON (AP)--Accepting pleas from the government, AT&T, MCI and Sprint, a federal judge decided Wednesday to postpone implementing an order that would have freed at least three regional Bell companies to provide long-distance service. U.S. District Court Judge Joe Kendall of Witchita Falls, Texas, said he would delay his surprise Dec. 31 ruling overturning key provisions of a 1996 telecommunications law until an appeal is heard. But Kendall also denied long-distance companies' request for an injunction to prevent the Bells from selling or preparing to sell long-distance service. Attorneys on both sides of the issue were studying the seemingly conflicting orders and weren't immediately certain what the effects were. With the judge delaying the order, SBC Communications, US West and Bell Atlantic would be required to abide by key provisions of the 1996 law, just as the other Bells are. Those provisions require all five Bells to open their local phone markets to competitors as a condition of winning federal approval to offer long-distance service to local phone customers. Kendall had ruled that these provisions discriminate against the Bells because they do not apply to GTE Corp., Southern New England Telephone Co., Frontier Corp. and other local phone companies. If Kendall's ruling had taken effect, it would have cleared the way for SBC, US West and Bell Atlantic to offer long-distance service without first having to open local phone markets to rivals. SBC took the case to court, with US West and Bell Atlantic subsequently joining the suit. SBC has not decided what its next legal step will be. SBC could ask the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Kendall's decision to delay the ruling. Or, it could ask the 5th Circuit for an expedited briefing schedule on appeal to resolve the case as soon as possible. The government and long-distance companies are preparing to appeal Kendall's Dec. 31 decision that declared the 1996 law's provisions governing Bell entry into long-distance unconstitutional. Specifically, Kendall ruled that the provisions constitute a "bill of attainder" _ punishing the Bells for the past anti-competitive sins of their one-time parent, AT&T, and for any offenses they may commit in the future. The Constitution bars Congress from passing any "bill of attainder" that inflicts punishment without a court trial. Courts have rarely held a law to be unconstitutional on those grounds. The government says the Supreme Court has done so only twice in this century. Both times the law at issue was enacted in response to the perceived threat of the Communist Party. The Supreme Court is likely to decide the constitutionality of the provisions governing Bells' entry into long distance. Under the provisions Kendall declared unconstitutional, the Bells enjoyed unprecedented access to the long-distance market because the provisions superseded a 1982 consent decree that barred the Bells from the business. That decree broke up the Bell System into a long-distance company, AT&T, and seven regional Bell companies to provide local phone service. After mergers, five regional Bells now exist. The Justice Department, the Federal Communications Commission, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, whose members include state telephone regulators, AT&T, MCI and Sprint were among the groups that asked Kendall to delay his Dec. 31 decision. ============ <A> SBC Says Ruling Holds Door Open For RBOC Long-Distance Svc SAN ANTONIO. Texas (Dow Jones)--SBC Communications Inc. (SBC) said that by entering a final order declaring certain parts of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 unconstitutional, a Texas court "continued to hold open the door" that will allow the regional bell operating companies to offer long distance service. In a press release Wednesday, SBC said it is significant that "the order makes clear that the unconstitutional sections are severable from the rest of the Act," and said the ruling finally puts to rest its competitors' efforts to resurrect the old consent decree. SBC was reacting to the news that a judge granted a motion staying his earlier ruling that would have overturned key parts of the Act, and would have allowed SBC and the other Bell companies to enter the long-distance market. SBC said the order granting the stay isn't unusual given the inevitability of an appeal. "The appeals process will be resolved quickly, and we're confident that the ruling will be upheld," the company said.