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 : Voice-on-the-net (VON), VoIP, Internet (IP) Telephony -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (1991)	11/24/1998 9:33:00 PM
From: Dug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

Hi Frank, apparently the FCC broke the law. I only read the hard copy in a hurry & didn't catch the url but will post it tomorrow evening. It stated that the LD phone co's have broken a gentlemen's agreement w/ the FCC. A few are pissed. Dug Edit, Not the meeting you are asking about though

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (1991)	11/25/1998 7:51:00 AM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3178

Frank: I go back to read: "under the new approach, states whose costs to provide phone service are well above a yet-to-be-determined national average would kick in as much money as they can to help make phone service affordable, Federal subsidies would cover the rest" and then try and understand why the FCC would not allow the "fees" as a write-off. At least that's the way it looks to me, not allowing the "tax". As far as the line-item that is greater, (top off value), that is understandable. Looking into the NECA as of late, covering that aspect of telecommunications, it is not easy to understand the price hikes in rual communities. If you are serviced by one of the approximately 1400 small independent telephone companies in America, your rates may be 8¢ per minute higher because of this regulatory discrepancy, and as you well know, calls which originate in NECA areas are usually more expensive than calls placed in and between areas served by larger carriers. Thats an area that should be exploited by ITSPs? Trying to understand how the FCC considers all the above is like trying to consider how the LECs are losing money <gg> Beginning January 1, 1999, the PICC ceilings for price cap non-primary residential and multi-line business lines will be adjusted for inflation and will increase by a maximum of $1.00 and $1.50 per year, respectively, until incumbent LECs can recover all of their permitted common line revenues through a combination of flat-rated SLCs and PICCs. Here's an interesting document released on Oct 97, with 1999 implications in paga 8. fcc.gov Regards, Stephen

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (1991)	11/27/1998 4:16:00 PM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Respond to of 3178

US West does have a point> Lower Colorado Phone Prices Being Stalled By Anti-Competitive Tactics of MCI Worldcom, ICG Netcom, Nextlink and McLeod USA Competitors Seek To Derail Pact Among U S WEST, the Colorado PUC and Office of <> November 27, 1998 U S WEST (NYSE: USW) today criticized delaying tactics being used by competitors to stall an agreement worked out between the local phone company, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, and the Office of Consumer Counsel. The agreement would enable U S WEST to lower prices more quickly, increase investments in Colorado, and meet service quality standards. In arguments to the PUC, MCI Worldcom, ICG Netcom, Nextlink and McLeod USA threw roadblocks in front of the deal, essentially delaying any possible approval of the accord until next year. "This is a step back for Colorado phone customers," said Kevin Smith, vice president, Colorado, U S WEST. "This agreement would give U S WEST the freedom to respond more quickly to competition by lowering prices for customers. MCI Worldcom and ICG Netcom are trying to scuttle it not for the customers' interest, but for their own." "MCI Worldcom just reported huge earnings. For them to try to restrict U S WEST's opportunity to better serve customers in this state is the ultimate hypocrisy," said Smith. "It's proof yet again that these companies are not interested in true competition. They just want to raid Denver's lucrative business market and take their profits out of state, with no regard for regular phone customers in the rest of the state." With the agreement, U S WEST would be given the same opportunity to lower prices and compete for customers. At the same time, the company would commit to capping basic residential and business rates, effectively freezing them going forward. In fact, under the agreement, phone rates in many cases could only go down. As part of the agreement, U S WEST also would invest more than $40 million in network improvements for Colorado's telecommunications network. These improvements would be made throughout the state, whereas competitors like MCI Worldcom and ICG Netcom make investments only in lucrative business centers while refusing to invest in residential, rural, and economically disadvantaged areas. Contrary to claims by MCI Worldcom, ICG Netcom and others, the agreement also calls for a significant amount of regulatory oversight of U S WEST prices and service quality -- significantly more regulation than other Colorado competitors face today. "This agreement would be a win-win for U S WEST and Colorado phone customers," said Smith. "Attempts by MCI Worldcom, ICG Netcom and others to shut it down only shows how hollow their calls for competition really are." SOURCE U S WEST