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 : Ascend Communications (ASND) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: peacelover who wrote (37166)3/2/1998 10:47:00 PM
From: Gary Korn  Respond to of 61433
 
3/2/98 CommunicationsWeek T23 (SEE BOLD)
1998 WL 2380634
InternetWeek
Copyright 1998 CMP Publications Inc.

Monday, March 2, 1998

704

Telepath

Information Services

New technologies may help carriers
--
Customers want net management help
Tim Wilson

Nearly a decade ago, a few carriers began talking about a new idea.
Wouldn't it be nice, they postulated, if customers could electronically

link to carriers' operational support systems (OSSs) and directly order
circuits, monitor performance, gather billing data and purchase new
services?

The idea was dubbed "customer network management," or CNM. And it
still hasn't happened.

"We've been trying to do this for 10 years and we haven't moved one
inch," said Jim Hutchinson, network manager at Boston Children's
Hospital.

But there are signs that the glacial pace of CNM development is about
to meet the blowtorches ignited by Internet technology, customer demand
for service level agreements and heated competition. And service
providers that don't break the ice could be left out in the cold.

"We have seen huge growth in demand for customer network management
technology," said Pam Dodge, director of marketing for network
management at switch maker Ascend Communications Inc., Alameda, Calif.
"The newer service providers are really looking at the self-service
provisioning idea. The [Bell companies] are still concerned about

providing access [to their OSSs]. But if they wait too long, they could
lose a step."


Telecommunications service providers last year took in about $4.6
billion worldwide from selling network management services, which
include CNM, according to Dataquest Inc., San Jose, Calif. The market
research company estimates that figure will grow to $5.8 billion by 2001
(see chart).

But customers said that CNM is more important as a competitive weapon
than as a way to generate revenue. "For a company like ours, where we
spend a lot of time on circuit provisioning for long-haul bandwidth and
local dial tone in our [points of presence], the ability to do
provisioning over the Web would be a godsend," said Allen Thomas,
manager of enterprise management services at Mindspring, an
Atlanta-based Internet service provider that leases about 2,200 lines.

"If we could find a carrier that could do these things online, it
would definitely be a differentiator," Mr. Hutchinson said.

CNM, which some companies have renamed "customer service management,"

is a blanket term that describes services that let customers view,
manage and manipulate the carrier network using tools on their own
premises. The idea is to speed deployment of new services and reduce
customer service staff requirements by letting customers handle their
own provisioning, circuit management, ordering and billing review.

Early CNM services required the carrier to build and maintain a
version of its own management system on the customer's premises. It was
an expensive and resource-intensive task, yet customers were not willing
to pay a premium for the capability. In many cases, service providers
found that their own OSS and administrative systems were so jumbled and
disconnected that they could not provide a cohesive management picture
for their own operators, much less for their customers.

Many of those problems still exist today. But technology has improved
to such a degree that service pro-viders are beginning to think about
trying again.

Web technology is the biggest wave in this sea of change. Using the
nearly universal Web interface, service providers can give customers
easy and consistent access to management information without asking them

to install specialized tools.

"All of the information in our [Advanced Trouble Analysis Center] is
fed out to a Web page, where planning and operations people can see it
and use it to do diagnostics and capacity planning," said Jim
Parkhurst, senior staff engineer at MCI Communications Corp.'s Advanced
Network Solutions unit. MCI's new electronic invoicing service,
introduced last month, also provides billing information to customers
over the Web.

It's only a matter of time before Web-based interfaces become
commonplace as a means of linking with premises-based network management
systems, said Bob Copithorne, president and CEO of Clear Communications
Corp., which offers Web-based OSS technology.

"The customer will be able to order bandwidth, get billed or check
trouble tickets without ever talking to anybody," Mr. Copithorne said.
"It'll be just like American Airlines' reservation system, Citibank's
electronic banking or Federal Express' package-tracking system."

CLECing away

Some of the new competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) already
are working on such a system. "By the end of 1999, we will offer online
billing, service provisioning and trouble ticketing directly to our
customers via the Internet," said Steve Holland, senior vice president
and chief information officer at Allegiance Telecom Inc., a CLEC that
provides local, long-distance and Internet services in 24 U.S. cities.

But before they can provide comprehensive online management services,
service providers must find a way to get some cohesion among their
back-end systems. Most service providers still maintain separate systems
for billing, reporting, troubleshooting, monitoring, order entry and
customer service. In many cases, those disconnected systems are
multiplied by the number of services the provider offers.

"For the more established carriers, their infrastructure is just not
in good shape for offering CNM services," said Elizabeth Adams,
managing director of the Network Management Forum, a consortium that
helps service providers implement network management technology. "A lot
of their systems are really, really old."

The complexity of back-end OSS and administrative systems has been one
of the chief stumbling blocks for CNM. But a growing number of
third-party vendors, such as Clear, MetaSolv Software Inc., Objective
Systems Integrators Inc., Vertel and Visual Networks Inc., offer tools
to help consolidate and integrate carrier management information.

These tools and application development environments differ widely in
function and format, ranging from Visual's simple frame relay reporting
tool (see sidebar) to complex, customized development kits that help
service providers rebuild their OSSs on more standardized, less
programming-intensive platforms.

But such tools have one thing in common: They help telecommunications
service providers unify the information collected on the back end and
pave the way for CNM services on the front end.

Customers said service providers are in dire need of such integration.
"Even when we sit face to face with various carriers, they can't get the
provisioning right," said Mindspring's Mr. Thomas. "Until they figure
out how to do that, it makes no sense to have a Web-based service.
Whatever technology they are using now doesn't seem to work, nor do the

people who are using it."

Despite the new technology available to them, many service providers
still seem reluctant to offer OSS access to their customers. "If we open
up [our OSS] to customers, it would be at the service management level,
not a direct link," said Bernie Harris, director of standards for GTE
Corp.'s TONICS network management center. "We're not sure that the
system could be partitioned safely otherwise."

Security is a common reason why service providers say they are
reluctant to offer CNM services. Some carriers, particularly wholesale
providers, said they do not want potential competitors to have access to
their management systems. Others said they are concerned about
customers stealing data about other customers.

But current software solves many of the partitioning problems, said
Jerry McDowell, an analyst at The Robert Frances Group, a San Jose,
Calif.-based consultancy. "There is enough software to do it," he said.
"It's just that service providers are not incented to do it. The
problems are too complex. And even if CNM services become revenue
generators in the short term, eventually customers will come to expect

them as a commodity. Service providers can't make money with them."

The race is on

Software and equipment providers disagreed, however. "[Service
providers] are still working their plans out, but by late summer, I
would expect to see some services rolling out," said Ascend's Ms. Dodge.
"There's a big [development] race going on right now."

Even if new technologies provide better front-end access for
customers, though, more established telcos must still find a way to pull
their back-end systems together, observed Mr. Bill Zide, director of
the advanced intelligent networking design and engineering practice at
Bellcore.

"Cost is the chief problem," Mr. Zide said. "Gathering customer data
means being able to pull it from several different places, and that's
very difficult today. Just to see what the customer has is difficult-now
you've got to disseminate that data to your back-end systems."

Tim Wilson is an InternetWeek editor at large.

Word Count: 1351
3/2/98 COMMWK T23
END OF DOCUMENT



To: peacelover who wrote (37166)3/2/1998 10:48:00 PM
From: Gary Korn  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 61433
 
3/2/98 CommunicationsWeek T25 (SEE BOLD)
1998 WL 2380636
InternetWeek
Copyright 1998 CMP Publications Inc.

Monday, March 2, 1998

704

Telepath

Information Services

Finally, 56-Kbps modems hit the fast lane
--
After a slow start, a growing number of ISPs plan to offer faster Internet
access
Paul Korzeniowski

Despite all of the hype and headlines that high-speed cable modem and

DSL technologies have received recently, the fastest speed available to
most people for connecting to the Internet is 56 kilobits per second.
But for a variety of reasons, such as a standards dispute and
slower-than-promised throughput, the deployment of 56-Kbps modems has
been disappointing. That should change this year, according to Internet
service providers and industry analysts.

Until the spring of 1997, the top speed for analog modems was 33.6
Kbps. But everybody wanted to go faster, especially as desktop
computers became more powerful and users spent more time visiting
graphically oriented Web sites.

That's why users' shift to 56-Kbps modems seemed like a natural move.
Many users were disappointed, however, when the new high-speed modems
arrived last year. While the devices promised to speed up file transfers
and let users surf the Web more quickly, it turned out that 56-Kbps
services were not widely available. That made it impossible for some
users to take advantage of the additional horsepower.

Some ISPs began offering 56-Kbps service last year, but many decided
to wait and see how quickly the market would develop and which 56-Kbps

standard would prevail. Only a handful of large ISPs developed 56-Kbps
services in 1997, according to Ernie Raper, a senior market analyst at
VisionQuest 2000 Inc., a Moorpark, Calif., market research company

America Online Inc., Dulles, Va., was one of the first to offer the
56-Kbps access. Matt Korn, senior vice president of operations at AOL,
said the company upgraded approximately 80 percent of its 700,000 modems
to make 56-Kbps access available in 540 cities.

The upgrade was easy to justify, according to Mr. Korn: "Modem
suppliers offered a free software upgrade that we could download to each
device."


Netcom Online Communications Services Inc., San Jose, Calif., also
moved quickly to offer 56-Kbps access. The ISP last July rolled out
56-Kbps service in 10 locations and had 60 locations operating by the
end of the year. Netcom officials said they plan to have 56-Kbps access
available in 300 locations later this year.

But most ISPs held back, primarily because of the existence of two
different standards for 56-Kbps technology. When the International

Telecommunication Union (ITU) began considering a 56-Kbps standard in
September 1996, a battle broke out between two groups of suppliers. One
group was led by 3Com Corp., Santa Clara, Calif., which supported its X2
56-Kbps protocol. The other camp was led by Lucent Technologies Inc.,
Murray Hill, N.J., and Rockwell International Inc., Newport Beach,
Calif., which pushed a different standard called K56flex. Both sides
quarreled over intellectual properties while trying to establish their
techniques as the de facto standard.

In the marketplace, the early winner was 3Com. Mr. Raper of
VisionQuest 2000 said the modem supplier delivered its products a few
months earlier than competitors and was able to win a 54 percent share
of all 56-Kbps modems sold in the United States last year.

The standards fight forced ISPs to make some tough decisions. Netcom,
for example, went with 3Com's X2 technology. "We have a long-standing
relationship with 3Com and determined it would be best for us to
continue working with the company's equipment," said Gene Shimshock,
vice president of marketing at Netcom.

Other ISPs, however, opted to remain neutral in the standards battle. AOL's Mr. Korn said his company's network now has 50 percent X2 and 50
percent K56flex equipment.

But playing it safe increases management chores. AOL has to manage its
modems as though they are two distinct types of equipment rather than
simply one set of modems.

That helps to explain why many ISPs didn't offer any type of 56-Kbps
service last year, and why sales of 56-Kbps modems were somewhat
disappointing. Vendors last year sold 11 million 56-Kbps modems, which
was more than any other new modem technology achieved in its first year,
according to VisionQuest's 2000's Mr. Raper. But many in the industry
had expected that the faster modems would produce sales of 20 million.

Barbara Ells, an industry analyst at Zona Research Inc., a Redwood
City, Calif., market research company, said consumers were confused
about the benefits of 56-Kbps modems and many shied away from buying
them. Users feared they would be left with incompatible or outdated
equipment because of the standards squabble.

They were also concerned about the devices' throughputs, she said.
Real-life usage showed that the modems received data at speeds ranging
from 47 Kbps to 53 Kbps and transmitted data at around 33.6 Kbps. While
this offered a little more speed than 33.6-Kbps modems, it was not as
big an improvement as many users had anticipated.

The slow acceptance of 56-Kbps modems hurt some vendors. In September,
3Com announced quarterly earnings of $1.6 billion, up 28 percent from
the previous year but lower than expected. In a prepared statement, 3Com
chairman Eric Benhamou said that the 56-Kbps standards debate had
delayed wide-scale upgrades from slower-speed modems.

Margins for error

At the same time, "the margins for high-speed modems dropped
significantly during the year," Mr. Raper noted. These devices started
out with a price tag of approximately $175, but they were selling in the
$125 range by the end of the year. "In an emerging market, it's very
unusual to see any price erosion during the first year," he said. "I
doubt that any of the modem suppliers were prepared for the 30-percent
price cuts seen last year."

With modem prices dropping as 1997 ended, many large ISPs began
jumping on the 56-Kbps bandwagon. In November, Uunet Technologies Inc.,
Fairfax, Va., added 56-Kbps support in 415 of its access locations and
expected the number to reach 490. The company opted for K56flex
technology because it relies on network concentrators from Ascend
Communications Inc., Alameda, Calif. The equipment supplier decided to
integrate Rockwell modems in its concentrators.

Also in November, AT&T WorldNet, Bridgewater, N.J., started with
deployment of X2 technology in 46 cities and added nine more before the
end of the year. In December, AT&T WorldNet rolled out K56flex services
in 11 cities and will add 20 more by the end of the year. The company
said it plans to offer 56-Kbps services to all of its users by June.

Declaring a truce

The 56-Kbps movement should pick up speed this year now that the
standards fight has been resolved. In January, the ITU released a draft
of a new standard called V.pcm that incorporates elements of X2 and
K56flex technology and will work with both. The specification is
expected to be ratified formally in September, but equipment vendors

said they will deliver compliant modems and remote-access systems in the
next few months. Vendors have promised that ISPs and consumers that have
already purchased 56-Kbps concentrators and modems will receive free
upgrades so their systems will comply with the new standard.

The change will make it simpler for ISPs to deploy 56-Kbps services;
they no longer will have to choose sides in the standards debate or
support duplicate sets of equipment. "I expect the number of ISPs
offering these services to rise significantly in 1998," said Mr. Raper
of VisionQuest 2000.

ISPs can now turn their attention from technical debates to marketing
the new service. "Because competition is so intense, ISPs have been on
[the] lookout for ways to differentiate their services. They do not want
to compete solely on price," said Ms. Ells of Zona Research.

A few ISPs last year tried using the higher-speed service as a
differentiating feature. "In a few cases, ISPs such as Netcom came out
with tiered pricing and charged customers $5 more [per] month for the
higher-speed service," Ms. Ells said. Consumers, however, who are more
price sensitive than businesses, did not show much interest in the new

service, she said.

Offering a 56-Kbps service won't be a differentiator much longer. With
the new standard almost in place, even small ISPs are expected to roll
out 56-Kbps services during the year. Consumers also are expected to
gobble up the higher-speed devices: VisionQuest 2000 expects 56-Kbps
modem sales to reach 20 million units this year. Consequently, the
higher-speed services should be widely available by the end of the year.

To differentiate their services, ISPs are bundling additional
features. Last March, Netcom announced its Netcomplete Advantage
service, which includes automated delivery of customized Web pages,
virus protection software and support for broadcast faxes. The service
is available for $24.95 per month. In October, the ISP added a second
service-Netcomplete Advantage Pro-that adds technical support as well as
access to an electronic library of newspapers, magazines, book chapters
and scripts for $29.95 per month. Netcom's Mr. Shimshock said
approximately 20 percent of the company's customers have opted for the
new services.

The slow lane

Still, as customers move to the faster service, ISPs must also
continue to support existing customers that use slower modems. Mr. Korn
of AOL predicted that only 20 percent of the company's 8 million dial-up
users will be using 56-Kbps modems by the end of this year.

"Historically, users migrate slowly to higher-speed access options,"
he said. "So while there is a lot of interest in the higher-speed
services, we know we will still have to support many users working with
older, slower modems."

Paul Korzeniowski is a free-lance writer based in Sudbury, Mass.

Word Count: 1549
3/2/98 COMMWK T25
END OF DOCUMENT



To: peacelover who wrote (37166)3/2/1998 10:51:00 PM
From: Gary Korn  Respond to of 61433
 
3/2/98 CommunicationsWeek 55 (See BOLD)
1998 WL 2380717
InternetWeek
Copyright 1998 CMP Publications Inc.

Monday, March 2, 1998

704

Trends

Virtual Private Networks

Virtual Connections
Salvatore Salamone

A systems integration job here, an ISP service contract awarded there.
Before you know it, virtual private networks are taking hold.

Ever so slowly, IT managers are deploying VPNs, or at least they're

taking a hard look at the business case for virtual connections over the
next few years.

Consulting firm Infonetics Research Inc. expects big growth. The
worldwide VPN market was $205 million in 1997-a number Infonetics says
may reach $10 billion by 2001.

But while the market numbers tell an upbeat story, numerous
bottlenecks remain. For starters, as with any new technology, there
aren't enough integration services to help managers deploy VPNs. Also,
the products aren't interoperable. And let's not forget that many
managers still aren't fully comfortable with the Internet itself.

"The VPN market is in an embryonic state," says Raymond Lopez, a
consultant at Rosewall and Associates, a company that designs and
installs remote access solutions.

"There are many positive signs that the market is poised to explode,"
Lopez says. "But there are also real-world deployment issues that may
sidetrack some corporate VPN efforts. The biggest problem most companies
will face is that there isn't a huge body of knowledge about VPNs out

there. There are very few people with specific VPN experience, which
could slow deployment."

Another problem is that the term VPN applies to a broad range of
technologies and virtually every type of networking known today. Yet
discussions about VPNs often lump everything together, making it hard
for many corporate IT managers to figure out what's important for a
specific application.

Most IT pros would agree that a virtual private network is an IP-based
network that uses encryption, tunneling and authentication to securely
connect users to their own corporate network. VPNs can save companies
money by reducing remote access and branch-office connectivity
telecommunications costs.

For example, in many remote access apps, VPNs eliminate long distance
connect-time charges typically billed at a rate of $4 to $10 per hour.
Instead, a user dials a local telephone number to reach an ISP and is
billed a flat monthly rate for Internet access.

VPNs also cut management overhead, since the remote access equipment

that companies use today is now maintained by most major ISPs.

Already, the market is splintering into four primary applications:
outsourcing remote dial-in access; connecting corporate sites;
delivering extranet access to outsiders; and using VPNs to conduct
business in new ways.

Each application has its own set of performance, security and cost
concerns that IT managers must consider before deciding if a VPN is
right for their company.

For instance, security was the leading concern at $1.5 billion AFC
Enterprises Inc., which owns nearly 2,700 Churchs Chicken, Popeyes
Chicken & Biscuits and Chesapeake Bagel Bakery restaurants.

"When we discussed the idea of sending weekly sales [figures] over the
Internet, [the franchisees] threw up security concerns," says Bill
Clapes, director of franchise systems at AFC.

Clapes opted for a VPN solution from VPNet Technologies Inc. because
it offered triple-DES encryption-about the strongest level available

for commercial applications.

For other companies, quickly establishing connections between a
temporary site and an enterprise corporate network makes VPNs very
appealing.

"You only have to wait seven or eight days [to establish a VPN
connection] at a job site," says Charles Richer, vice president of MIS
at Morse Diesel International Inc., a construction company. Richer says
before VPNs, it could take months to get leased lines or high-speed
switched data service links to a location.

Now, Morse has about 65 locations that connect to its headquarters in
New York via a VPN. It used to cost $1,000 to $2,000 per month to
provide a site with access to data that resided on midrange systems in
the New York office. With the VPN, the sites pay an ISP fee of about $20
per month.

Forming Partnerships

Another issue of concern is VPN service levels. "VPNs are ultimately

about partnerships," says Michael Howard, president of Infonetics
Research. "And the most important VPN partnership for many companies and
organizations will be the one they establish with their VPN service
provider."

Howard says an IT manager who wants to implement a VPN has to decide
which operational tasks to keep. Does the manager want to be responsible
for maintaining the VPN equipment at each of the organization's sites or
should the service provider take care of that? Does the company want to
handle provisioning of the lines to each site for the VPN or should that
also be the responsibility of the service provider? It can get to be a
long list.

After settling these issues, it's time to find a provider that can
offer those services. Although this sounds like common sense, it's
actually much harder to accomplish than one might expect.

"We end up marrying a company with a carrier," says Thomas Pincince,
founder and executive vice president of New Oak Communications Inc.,
which was recently acquired by Bay Networks Inc.

New Oak's flagship product, the NOC 4000-installed at the user
company's location-handles encryption, authentication and tunneling for
up to 2,000 simultaneous VPN user sessions.

Vendor Guides

Indeed, some IT managers find they rely heavily on equipment vendors
for guidance. That was the case with Morse Diesel, which selected
tunneling routers from Compatible Systems Corp. "They helped us with
the planning," explains Richer. "And they were there for us night and
day."

Service is critical, and the ISPs typically don't have a wide enough
range of offerings, nor do they offer turnkey systems complete with
Internet service, equipment and management.

The VPN equipment companies such as New Oak often fill the role of
integrator, helping a company find an ISP that can deliver the Internet
access and management support required to get a VPN up and running.

So what's holding up VPN implementation? Besides security, there's the

basic issue of the Internet's performance. Managers who use traditional
data services like frame relay are used to certain performance
standards. They typically get service level agreement guarantees from
their carriers on network downtime and bandwidth availability.

VPN services are not at that stage yet. SLAs for VPNs are typically
weaker than those for other data services. Specifically, service
providers don't offer end-to-end latency-related performance guarantees
because the ISPs still don't offer cross-backbone quality-of-service
guarantees.

Today, a few ISPs offer different levels of service that would give
certain traffic a higher priority. Such tiered services only apply when
the traffic stays on the ISP's backbone, however.

Once the traffic goes from one ISP backbone to another, all guarantees
go out the window.

"The minute leaves one network and goes to the first
[network access point], it's send and pray," says Timothy Kraskey,
marketing vice president of

Ascend Communications Inc.'s core systems division. "There's no QoS
connecting the [networks] together."


The best a manager can do when searching for VPN services is look for
network availability guarantees. All of the current major VPN service
offerings from GTE Internetworking, AT&T WorldNet and MCI, among others,
are packaged with SLAs that offer refunds or credits when that
provider's network is down for a set period of time each day.

Most ISPs that offer SLAs typically guarantee their networks will be
available 98 percent of the time or more. Essentially, these carriers
are saying their networks will be available at least 23 hours and 57
minutes a day. In many cases, this level of network availability is
acceptable.

But for some more mission-critical applications, this still might not
be enough. "We're tracking all of our transactions in real time,"
explains Ken Jones, manager of information systems at Group One Ltd., a
privately held stock options trading firm.

The company established a VPN when it was planning to open its
Philadelphia office. The company used a private WAN that ran over leased
lines between the San Francisco office and other offices. The cost to
add additional leased lines to support the Philly office made Group One
opt for a VPN. A prime concern was the reliability of the ISP's network.

No Hiccups Allowed

"A lot of ISPs consider 98 percent uptime very acceptable," says
Jones. "But for us, a momentary glitch or routing hiccup that knocks
out connectivity for 30 seconds or a minute is a billion-dollar glitch."
For that reason, Group One chose TCG CERFnet, which offers 99.9 percent
availability.

For other managers, overall equipment performance might be an issue.
Communicating over a VPN requires heavy processing power from your PCs
and access devices.

Along with TCP/IP, the equipment must run other protocols like the
Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol or IP Security to establish and
maintain tunnels across the Internet. The devices also must authenticate

users and encrypt data.

Of course, some may worry that client performance may drag after
encryption software is installed, but AFC's Clapes sees no performance
hit.

"It speaks to what we expect from the Internet today," he says, noting
that his users are accustomed to waiting for Web pages to be downloaded.
Many vendors, such as New Oak Communications, Red Creek Communications,
TimeStep Corp. and RadGuard, are addressing these issues by dedicating
high-performance processing power to the encryption process.

When it comes to VPNs, there are many reasons to use them and
expectations can vary greatly.

Some companies simply need a less expensive way for users to connect
to the network. Others want users in different sites to work together.
And still others want to open their networks to outsiders.

Obviously, these differences must be taken into account. The best
approach is to start by examining why a VPN is the right choice. What do

you really want to accomplish?

Some, like Morse Diesel's Richer and Group One's Jones, say it's the
cost savings. Others, like AFC's Clapes, say a VPN lets their companies
do things they simply could not do before.

Are there risks to deploying VPNs now? Sure, but there also are cost
savings and efficiencies. Early adopters stand to gain a serious
competitive advantage.

With VPNs maturing almost daily, it makes sense to explore
establishing virtual connections at your company.

TECHtips

Virtual Private Networks

Purchasing virtual private network services is hardly an established
art form. Following these tips should make for an easier virtual life:

- Consider your business goals. Determine which applications-remote

access, connecting sites, extranet-you want to connect to VPN services.

- Think through your network security needs. Decide what level of
security is necessary for each application.

- Do some comparison shopping. Build a matrix of the different
equipment vendors' offerings to see which product set meets your
security and management needs.

- Divide up management responsibilities. Decide which portion of VPN
management duties you would like an ISP to handle and which tasks to
keep in-house.




To: peacelover who wrote (37166)3/2/1998 10:52:00 PM
From: Gary Korn  Respond to of 61433
 
3/2/98 Bus. Wire 14:28:00 (SEE BOLD)
Business Wire
Copyright (c) 1998, Business Wire

Monday, March 2, 1998

Merisel Inc. Signs Exclusive Agreement to Provide Internet Services through
UUNET's Integrated Solutions Program; Agreement Allows Resellers to Increase
Profits by Selling Services or Referring Clients

EL SEGUNDO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 2, 1998--Merisel Inc.
(Nasdaq:MSEL) Monday announced that it has signed an exclusive agreement with
Fairfax, Va.-based UUNET Technologies, a global leader in Internet
communications and a subsidiary of WorldCom Inc., for North American
distribution of Internet-access services to all Merisel resellers.

UUNET's broad range of high-quality Internet-access and Web hosting services
complement Merisel's strategic focus on the Internet market and expand the
distributor's comprehensive offering with a unique range of profit-generating
opportunities for resellers.


"This agreement combines UUNET's industry-leading customer- satisfaction
rating and expansive geographic presence with Merisel's dedicated ISP sales,
LAN/WAN and technical-support teams," said Art Merkin, Merisel's vice
president, Technical Products Division.

"VARs have been requesting a broader and simpler ISP offering, and we're one
of the first to offer it to them. With this agreement, our VARs will receive
best-in-class Internet access and support, regardless of their networking
expertise."

Earlier this year, Merisel was successful in pioneering a partnership with
another leading ISP to meet resellers' needs and provide them with a
competitive advantage in the Internet-services market.

The agreement with UUNET further expands Merisel's offering so that Merisel
VARs and Sun resellers (through MOCA, the Merisel Open Computing Alliance) can
generate revenue by selling the solutions and services themselves as authorized
Merisel/UUNET Solutions Providers, or simply referring clients to UUNET's sales
team in the Client Referral Program.


In either case, resellers can earn commissions up to $3,500, in addition to
ongoing annuities. Resellers can offer their customers UUNET's full line of
Internet connectivity, including ISDN, fractional and full T1, and fractional
T3 access. Merisel will also help facilitate authorization, regional training,
sales tools and support to participating resellers under this agreement.

In addition, Merisel will offer channel-exclusive bundles with key
internetworking vendors like Ascend Communications that offer extensive UUNET
service discounts when bought with these products.

"Our UUNET/Ascend bundle is one great example of how we're making it easy for
resellers," added Merkin. "For the same price a reseller would pay for an
Ascend Pipeline 50, they'll also receive a UUNET bundle that includes free ISDN
access for their end user and more than $2,600 savings in the first year of
service."


Merisel is a leader in the distribution of computer hardware and software
products, with reported 1997 sales of $4.05 billion. Merisel distributes a full
line of 25,000 products and services from the industry's leading manufacturers
to more than 45,000 resellers throughout North America.


In addition, the company provides a full range of customized, value-added
services. Merisel also offers dedicated support to high-end resellers through
the Merisel Open Computing Alliance (MOCA), a specialty division for Sun
Microsystems and third-party products. Merisel's corporate Web site is located
at www.merisel.com.

CONTACT: Merisel Inc., El Segundo Julie Motta, 310/615-
1283 julie.motta@merisel.com 14:13 EST MARCH 2,
1998




To: peacelover who wrote (37166)3/2/1998 10:53:00 PM
From: Gary Korn  Respond to of 61433
 
3/2/98 Bus. Wire 09:39:00
Business Wire
Copyright (c) 1998, Business Wire

Monday, March 2, 1998

Dell'Oro Group 4Q97 Router & Remote Access Report; SOHO Market Shows Strongest
Growth in 1997 with Cisco, AVM, and Ascend Leading

PORTOLA VALLEY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 2, 1998--Router sales grew 15
percent over 1996 to $5.2 billion, and Remote Access sales grew 23 percent to
$2.2 billion. Router market growth came primarily from the lower end, and in
particular ISDN Dial-up SOHO routers which increased 46 percent over 1996.

The Dell'Oro Group believes SOHO router demand represents small businesses
connecting to the Internet and should become an area of significant growth in
the future. Cisco leads the SOHO market with 32 percent share of sales,
followed by AVM and Ascend with 19 and 9 percent share of sales respectively.

On the contrary, Remote Access sales came primarily from high-end Access

Concentrators where revenue increased by 48 percent.

Overall market leaders in Routers and Remote Access are listed below:
Router and Remote Access Market Leaders, 1997
Manufacturers Revenue and Market Share
Router Market
Cisco $3,284.2 64%
Bay Networks $534.6 10%
3Com $203.1 4%
IBM $121.7 2%
Motorola $112.1 2%
Remote Access Market
3Com $753.3 34%
Ascend $610.5 27%
Cisco $390.7 18%
Shiva $105.9 5%
Livingston $76.4 3%

The Dell'Oro Group's Routers and Remote Access report provides in-depth data
and analysis of the Router and Remote Access markets. Available to clients this
week on www.delloro.com, the report contains tables of data on the performance

of over 30 manufacturers.

The Dell'Oro Group is a research and consulting firm that specializes in
business planning and strategic competitive analysis in the networking
industry.

CONTACT: Cell'Oro Group Catherine Maxwell, 650/529-2787 ext.
228 www.delloro.com 09:24 EST MARCH 2, 1998

Word Count: 246
3/2/98 BWIRE 09:39:00
END OF DOCUMENT



To: peacelover who wrote (37166)3/2/1998 10:55:00 PM
From: Gary Korn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 61433
 
3/2/98 Select Fed. Filings Newswires 08:24:00 (SEE BOLD)
Federal Filings Newswires
Copyright (c) 1998, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Monday, March 2, 1998

FFBN Cnvts: Converts Horizon
--
Pending Offerings
ISSUER: FEDERAL FILINGS BUSINESS NEWS
SYMBOL: X.FFI
========================================================================
CALENDAR OF PROPOSED CONVERTIBLE SECURITIES OFFERINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compiled by the Federal Filings Convertibles Group
========================================================================
The following is a forward-looking calendar of proposed
convertible securities offerings:
Company Issue Size Rating Manager Maturity
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Alkermes Inc. Bond $100M BancAmerica 3 yr.
(ALKS) Robertson
Stephens.
Comment: Rumored to have 6.25% to 7.25% coupon and priced at a 23% to
26% premium. Private placement for the drug company.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
May & Speh Inc. Bond $100M Donaldson, 5 yr.
(SPEH) Lufkin &
Jenrette
Comment: To repay term loan and for capital expenditures. Speh family
also registered 1.5 million common shares at same time. Merrill Lynch,
Abn Amro and Painewebber also involved in underwriting. Company is a
provider of technology based information management systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicom Group Bond $230M 15 yrs.
Inc. (OMC)
Comment: Sold 2.25% convertible subordinated notes in a private
placement on Jan. 6. Submitted filing to the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 27 notifying that the note holder had sold the notes
and intends to make a market in them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Belco Oil & Gas Stock $75M Salomon
Co .(BOG) Smith Barney
Comment: Registered offering. Funds to lower bank debt. A total of 3
million preferred shares.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cisco Systems Lehman
Inc. (CSCO) Brothers
Comment: No other information available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amkor Technology Bond $150M Salomon 5 yr.
Inc.
Comment: Co. amended its IPO to include $150 million convertible note
offer, with add'l $22.5 million of notes for over-allotments. Will use
proceeds for short-term and long-term debt. BancAmerica Robertson
Stephens, Cowen & Co also underwriting issue. Registered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
KCS Energy Inc. Bond $125M B- (S&P) Smith Barney 7 yr.
(KCS) Inc.
Comment: Proceeds to be used to reduce credit facility debt. Notes
redeemable beginning some time in the year 2000. Offering also
underwritten by Prudential Securities Inc., CIBC Oppenheimer, Morgan

Keegan & Co. and Salomon Bros. Inc. Registered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Gulf Pfd
Properties Inc. (PAG)
Comment: Co. expects to offer Class A and Class B convertible preferred
shares. Proceeds to be used for purchases of properties.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennametal Inc. Feline $225M Ba1 (M) Merrill
(KMT) PRIDES Lynch & Co.
Comment: Co. postponed offering on Jan. 23 due to market conditions.
Proceeds to be used to repay bank debt. PRIDES consist of trust
preferred securities and stock purchase contracts due some time in 2001.
Goldman Sachs & Co. also underwriting issue. Registered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Skyline Pfd
Multimedia Ent.
Inc. (SKYL)
Comment: Co. to offer 650,000 units, each consisting of one cvt.
preferred share and warrants to buy additional preferred shares.
Proceeds to be used for equity capital and to satisfy financial
obligations. Expected in late first quarter 1998.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Madden
Ltd. (SHOO)
Comment: Co. said it retained Hambrecht & Quist LLC as advisor for
possible convertible private placement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Heico Inc. Bond $75M B- (S&P) Forum Capital 7 yr.
(HEI) B3 (M) Mkts. L.P.
Comment: Co. will use proceeds for general corporate purposes and
working capital. Raymond James & Assoc. Inc., Southeast Research
Partners Inc. also underwriting issue. Three-year hard call protection.
Registered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ascend Comm. Bond 7 yr.
Inc. (ASND)
Comment: Private placement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Owens Corning Feline $300M Merrill Lynch
(OWC) PRIDES & Co.
Comment: Feline PRIDES of Owens Corning Capital II used to purchase an
undisclosed amount of junior subordinated debentures of Owens Corning.

Each stock purchase unit of Owens Corning consists of stock purchase
contracts to buy Owens Corning common stock and U.S. Treasury
interests. Issue has settlement date of November 16, 2000. Credit
Suisse First Boston, Goldman Sachs & Co. also underwriting issue.
Registered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll Rand STRYPES Merrill Lynch
Co. (IR) & Co.
Comment: Co. filed $1.05 billion debt and equity shelf on October 2.
Proceeds to be used for general corporate purposes. Registered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Market price talk with respect to impending securities offerings is
compiled from various market sources, some of whom may make a market in
or have financial interest in the issues presented. The information
contained herein does not represent a solicitation to sell or buy the
underlying issues. FFI shall not be held liable for any reason for any
errors or omissions, delays or inaccuracies or any decision made in
reliance upon price and yield indications. FFI shall not be liable to
any person for any loss of business revenues or lost profits for any
indirect, special, consequential or exemplary damages whatsoever,
whether in contract, tort or otherwise, arising in connection with the

indications, even if FFI has been advised of the possibility of such
damages. FFI makes no merchantability or fitness for a particular
purpose with respect to the indications and specifically disclaims any
such warranty.
/www.fedfil.com/support //

(END) FEDERAL FILINGS-DOW JONES NEWS 03-02-98

08:24

/FEDERAL FILINGS CONTACTS: (202) 393-7856 FOR
EDITORIAL, (800) 487-6162 FOR DOCUMENT
SALES, (202) 628-8990 FOR NEWSWIRE
SALES, (888) FED-FILE FOR TECHNICAL
SUPPORT, & http:/




To: peacelover who wrote (37166)3/2/1998 10:57:00 PM
From: Gary Korn  Respond to of 61433
 
3/2/98 Prof. Inv. Rep. 16:52:00

Professional Investor Report
Copyright (c) 1998, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Monday, March 2, 1998

NMS Share Volume Most Actives At 4:50 P.M.
Stock Net Chg Last Volume Net Tick Vol
---------- --------- --------- ----------- ------------
DELL - 4 1/4 135 5/8 22,531,800 - 853,900
INTC - 2 1/16 87 5/8 17,932,900 - 2,100
MSFT - 1 3/8 83 3/8 12,521,900 - 726,000
AMAT - 1 3/8 35 7/16 11,828,700 + 82,100
PETM + 1 3/8 9 11,372,300 - 261,400
NOVL - 9/64 10 3/8 8,912,500 + 238,700
WCOM + 9/16 38 3/4 8,093,700 - 785,700
CSCO - 5/8 65 1/4 7,528,500 - 100,300
COMS - 1/8 35 5/8 7,129,000 + 3,500

ORCL - 1/2 24 1/8 6,835,900 + 293,500
SCOP + 4 7/16 18 9/16 5,525,000 + 146,700
ASND - 2 3/8 35 1/16 5,236,100 + 32,100
KLAC - 3 5/32 43 4,615,600 - 175,200
SUNW - 1 7/8 45 3/4 4,019,100 + 67,600
VLSI - 1/4 19 1/16 3,962,100 - 349,800
CMCSK + 3/16 35 3/16 3,934,500 + 379,800
PSFT - 7/16 44 1/4 3,898,200 - 136,200
VCELA + 1/16 13 1/16 3,879,800 + 15,100
QNTM - 1 1/4 23 7/8 3,734,500 + 316,500
AAPL - 7/8 22 3/4 3,575,400 + 709,600

(END) Dow Jones Newswires 03-02-98

04:52 PM EST