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: djane who wrote (54114)9/13/1998 3:42:00 PM
From: Tim Luke  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 61433
 
don't be so sure about lu buying asnd, for that matter ansd just might be left all on it's own.

Stayed tuned towards the end of next week and I just might add some more thoughts to this subject.



To: djane who wrote (54114)9/13/1998 3:57:00 PM
From: djane  Respond to of 61433
 
RedHerring interview w/Roth (NT)

herring.com

TELECOM'S BAY BRIDGE

Nortel's acquisition of Bay Networks
took the telecom industry by surprise.
CEO John Roth explains the reasons
for the pre‰mptive strike.

By Luc Hatlestad
The Red Herring magazine
October 1998

Nortel CEO John Roth, the leader of one of the world's
largest telcos, is difficult to reach by phone. With his
company beginning the battle to gain a lead on Lucent
Technologies, Cisco Systems, and every other
formidable company in the telco equipment space, Mr.
Roth can usually be found on airplanes, in
meetings--everywhere but in his office. Mr. Roth finally
cleared his schedule to tell the Red Herring about
Nortel's stunning acquisition of Bay Networks.

Why Bay Networks instead of Ascend, Newbridge,
or some other datacom company?

We were very strong in circuit switching, fiber optics,
and wireless infrastructure, and we have a good
background in ATM [Asynchronous Transfer Mode]
and packet switching. What we didn't have was routing
expertise or a good customer list for data networks. Bay
fit that description. Ascend's and Newbridge's products
overlap heavily with ours, so if we'd acquired either we'd
have been buying a competitor, not a company like Bay,
whose products are complementary. We're finding no
overlap at all in our product portfolios, which has helped
make integration much easier.

Most industry observers expected Lucent or Cisco
to make the first big move toward convergence.
Why did Nortel plunge ahead?

We felt that mergers were inevitable, and if this was
going to happen, it was better for Nortel to have first
choice than last. We had worked with Cabletron and
Shiva and with smaller companies; that helped us realize
what we were looking for. When we determined that
Bay wasn't aligned with anyone, that made the decision
easier.

Some analysts thought Bay was an unlikely target
for Nortel because its LAN equipment didn't fit
your needs. But now you're saying that Bay's LAN
expertise was a key to the deal.

We have a very good WAN product in Passport, but
requirements for the WAN actually start in the LAN.
People pioneer their network building in the LAN, then
extend it across their entire network. Our customers
came to us with this plan, but we hadn't yet figured out
how to do it. That put us at a market disadvantage,
because if we had been deeper into the LAN space,
we'd have seen these requirements emerge earlier and
been faster to market with complementary WAN
products.

What do your customers think of the acquisition?

Our having the whole bundle of LAN and WAN
equipment makes it much easier on our customers. They
really like the idea of a whole solution rather than a series
of boxes that they have to figure out how to put together
themselves. We're finding that since we've acquired Bay,
customers who own our PBXs [private branch
exchanges] are calling us to say, "Now that you supply
everything we need--data networks in addition to
PBXs--how about talking to us about a complete
package?"

The reaction from all our customers, including those that
were Bay's, has been extremely positive. They've been
greatly reassured that Bay is going to be around, and
they see a viable alternative to Cisco in this space. On
the carrier side, the customers are delighted because
they've been worried about who would help them build
their IP networks.

Were there ever any serious talks about a
Cisco/Nortel union?

Cisco wasn't for sale. Cisco CEO John Chambers has
been pretty clear in his opinion that mergers of large,
geographically disparate companies don't work. Also,
two large organizations working so closely together is
very difficult when you have two sets of shareholders to
satisfy.

What are Nortel's plans for future acquisitions?

We're strictly a network builder, so we won't get into
buying service providers like CLECs [competitive
local-exchange carriers] or any carriers. We will continue
to look for companies that might represent voids in our
product portfolio. Given our strong distribution channel,
we're now seeking products more than anything else, and
that's what we'll continue to shop for.

Table of Contents



To: djane who wrote (54114)9/13/1998 4:00:00 PM
From: djane  Respond to of 61433
 
We [NT] had worked with Cabletron and Shiva and with smaller companies; that helped us realize what we were looking for.
Isn't this exactly what LU has done with Livingston, Yurie, Prominet, etc. before going for the big kahuna -- ASND?



To: djane who wrote (54114)9/13/1998 4:10:00 PM
From: djane  Respond to of 61433
 
RedHerring. WIRELINE COMMUNICATIONS: CONVERGENCE BREEDS CONSOLIDATION

herring.com

As the voice, data, and video networks
unite, wire-line communications
companies are making acquisitions left
and right.

By Luc Hatlestad
The Red Herring magazine
October 1998

Last November, with some fanfare, the Red Herring
announced that "telecom as you know it is dead." We
declared that old-style, phone-service-only companies
were transforming themselves through mergers and
acquisitions into multiservice communications
conglomerates. As anyone who reads the business pages
knows, this prediction has come true in spades. In the
past few months, we've seen long-distance carriers
purchase cable companies, competitive local-exchange
carriers (CLECs), and each other. The coming months
will see the original seven regional Bell operating
companies (RBOCs) shrink to four and communications
equipment vendors like Lucent Technologies and
Northern Telecom plug the holes in their product lines by
acquiring smaller equipment vendors, application
developers, and data networking vendors (see chart,
below).

Two principal forces are driving this M&A surge:
convergence and deregulation. The promise of
convergence has prompted organizations to try to carry
more of their communications across data
networks--with the intent of eventually running voice,
data, and video across a unified, cheaper, and more
easily managed network. Although consolidation is to be
expected in a hot market, analysts say that convergence
and M&A are increasing economies of scale in the
telecom industry to a remarkable extent. It's one thing for
an organization to bolster its suite of human resources
applications by buying some new software; it's quite
another for it to mix and match components and services
to create an entire communications network. This is why
many think that end-to-end, single-vendor
voice-and-data networks make sense, and it is the
reasoning behind Northern Telecom's eyebrow-raising
acquisition of Bay Networks--the first major salvo in the
convergence wars (see "The Northern Plight").

Simultaneously, deregulation of the telecommunications
industry in the United States and Europe has sparked a
flurry of innovation and startup activity. In Europe,
aggressive young companies are taking on recently
privatized incumbents (see Street Talk). In the States,
venture capitalists are flocking to startups that are
developing convergence technologies, particularly to
those companies making data-optimized equipment for
the CLECs (see VC Whispers). At the same time, the
established telcos are eager to break into markets for
new technologies like DSL and optical networking.
Predictably, the influx of new companies and
technologies and the loosening of federal regulations have
triggered a buying spree by large companies trying to
maintain their edge in an extant market or attempting to
enter a new one.

Most of the benefits of this consolidation have yet to be
realized. Proponents of convergence may gush about all
the marvelous capabilities on the horizon, but few of the
new technologies have been delivered in any usable
form. IP telephony, or voice communications transmitted
over the Internet, still suffers from performance
shortcomings. At least one prominent skeptic, Maribel
Lopez of Forrester Research, believes that the
convergence of voice and data will fail miserably. Ms.
Lopez coauthored a recently released study stating that
businesses cannot justify the hybrid systems'
performance problems and that multiple networks will
live on "forever." For now, says Fred Briggs, MCI's
chief engineering officer, voice over IP is chiefly "an
arbitrage opportunity" for avoiding fees that apply to
phone communications but not to data transmission--so
far (see "Kings of the WorldCom").

And as our status check for the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 explains, U.S. deregulation has not yet led to
major changes: designed to foster competition and shrink
barriers to market entry, the act has not unseated any of
the large incumbents, which continue to grow through
M&A (see "What Happened to the Telecom Act?").



So who figures to come out ahead in this race to wire the
world? With deregulation under way, the big companies
should get bigger and enjoy the riches that come from
sheer size. On the services side, industry observers see
AT&T, WorldCom, and a few RBOCs rising to the top,
while the telecom equipment space has been virtually
ceded to Lucent, Cisco, and Nortel, with Ericsson
Telephone given a fighting chance to break into the elite.

Aren't the wireless companies a threat? A valid question,
especially in many parts of Asia and South America
where routers, switches, and cables take a backseat to
satellites and cellular phones. Although considerable
crossover between wire-line and wireless technologies is
likely, prepare to hear the term "co”petition" bandied
about regularly as the two camps strive to top each
other.

Most smaller companies will probably be subsumed by
the larger ones, but some stand to make a lot of money
in the meantime. ITXC, one of the Herring's top 50
private companies for 1998, is a striking example of the
various and somewhat unpredictable ways that startups
are cashing in on the convergence craze (see "Bridging
the Gap").

The traditional telecom industry is indeed dead, but its
heirs are proving to be a more dynamic, powerful, and
global collection of organizations. We'll have to wait for
the shakeout in M&A--and the technologies--before we
know which players will be carrying our communications
in the next millennium.

c Herring Commu



To: djane who wrote (54114)9/13/1998 4:13:00 PM
From: djane  Respond to of 61433
 
Asia Lags In Bumpy Internet Revolution

internetnews.com

[NEW DELHI--Reuters] The Internet may be a great leveller. But getting
hooked onto it is not an even race.

Experts at the four-day India Internet World conference in New Delhi last
month predicted a shift from the Industrial Age to a Digital Era, but there were
enough signs that it would take a while for the globe to become a cybernetic
village.

Christmas this year could see U.S. shoppers heralding big-time electronic
commerce, but Asia is still a step behind. Its companies are busy boosting
intranets--Internet-like networks that link up the interiors of companies.

Before sales, content and services on the Internet bring in a new age of
communications and business, intranets must bring immediate productivity
gains and a technological backbone to help easy commerce, experts said.

"While a lot of people talk about the Web (World Wide Web) and
e-commerce, a lot of money in industry is being spent to ensure that I (firms)
have my (their) own enterprise safe," Mike Antonelli, International Business
Machines Corp.'s Asia-Pacific e-business programme director, told
delegates.

Intranets and "extranets," their extension to include suppliers and contractors,
still form the leitmotif of the Internet technology business in large parts of the
world.

An IBM document says that by 2000, firms will spend $64 billion worldwide
on intranets.

IBM says 80 percent of companies use the Net but only seven percent
conduct e-business. E-business includes intranets, extranets and e-commerce.

Intranets are a major focus because they help companies save money and
boost efficiency immediately.

E-commerce, still an emerging frontier, entails actual sales or transactions
involving customers on the Internet. Its potential is limited by the usage of
Internet.

A spokesman for industry research firm International Data Corp told Reuters
in an electronic mail response that 15 to 20 percent of firms in the Asia-Pacific
region, on an average, were planning on implementing an intranet.

He said all of these companies were looking to investing in security solutions
for their networks within a two-year period.

"The countries leading the intranet implementation in the region were Australia,
South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and China, with Hong Kong and Taiwan
seemingly lagging behind the mainland companies in their intranet deployment,"
he said.

Regional disparities in logging on to the Internet are wide, according to IDC
forecasts.

The Asia-Pacific region excluding Japan, which currently has around 12.2
million Internet users, is forecast to have 35.3 million users in 2002. Japan's
users would increase from the current 7.35 million to 19.4 million over the
same period.

In contrast, the United States now has 56 million Internet users, and will have
more than 137 million in 2002.

Western Europe is forecast to have only around 44.3 million by 2002, up
from the current 28.9 million.

However, according to Micromedia, which organised the New Delhi
conference, Japan already has 10 million users and China five million.

Only Japan and Australia were close to getting on to e-commerce in a big
way at the moment, IBM's Antonelli told Reuters. Australia, with 3.6 million
connections, has a high, 26-percent penetration in relation to its population.

IDC estimates Australian users at 5.76 million in 2002. China is forecast to
have 9.4 million users, Taiwan 3.3 million, Hong Kong 2.43 million, Malaysia
1.34 million, the Philippines 0.9 million and Singapore 1.37 million in that year.

Even in the United States, the Big Bang is still awaited.

"Christmas 1998, I think is going to be the first year of serious consumer
shopping on the Internet..." Bill Melton, chief executive officer of CyberCash
Inc, told Reuters.

Things may change soon. According to Forrester Research Inc, exchange of
goods and services over the Net are set to cross $327 billion by 2002, up
from $17 billion in 1998.

The number of World Wide Web purchasers is expected to shoot up from 18
million in 1997 to 128 million in 2002, industry magazine CNET said last
month.

The future may come in faster, because Internet has taken only five years to
reach the number radio took 25 years and television took 15 years, experts
say.

But roadblocks are seen.

Antonelli said spending on Internet technologies was still inhibited by a number
of factors, including security concerns, lack of skills, start-up costs and
perceptions of benefits.

There are also lingering anxieties on content on the Internet, which some say
cannot be ignored.

"The industry in the U.S. is so focused on technology that there are very few
thinking on social effects," Ken Freed, publisher of Internet magazine Media
Visions and an analyst of social effects of interactive media, told Reuters.

Freed singled out sex scandals involving U.S. President Bill Clinton this year
as a case in point.

"Internet played a role in making the story public and did so in a way below
established journalistic standards," he said.

Beyond such pitfalls, experts predict radical changes.

Antonelli mentioned Amazon, a "bookshop without books," as an example of
how technology could change businesses. Intellectual skills will now emerge as
a key force, he said.

"You are beginning to disassemble the competencies of a company," he said.
In management-speak, that would mark a shift from "standalone enterprises"
to "value nets."

Copyright c 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication o r
redistribution of Reuters Limited content, including by framing or similar
mea ns, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of
Reuters Limited . Reuters Limited shall not be liable for any errors or
delays in the content, o r for any actions taken in reliance thereon.