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: Stephen B. Temple who wrote (2087)	12/11/1998 7:29:00 AM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Respond to of 3178

e.spire Files Arbitrations Against BellSouth for Next Generation Interconnection Arrangements Almost Three Years After Passage of Telecom Act, BellSouth Continues To <> December 11, 1998 ANNAPOLIS JUNCTION, Md., Dec. 10 /PRNewswire/ e.spire Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: ESPI) today announced that it has filed for arbitration against BellSouth in eight states over the terms for interconnecting the two companies' local networks -- terms that affect the ability of customers in the Southeastern and South Central United States to choose their local telecommunications company. e.spire, which obtained its initial interconnection in 1996 for local networks in cities throughout the BellSouth region, is pursuing arbitration to resolve the critical issues in its renegotiation of initial contracts before state public service commissions in: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee. "Even though the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed almost 3 years ago, competitors still have to fight to translate the benefits into operational practices in the face of stonewalling by the incumbent monopolies on collocation, access to network elements, and other issues. Interconnection arbitrations are just one of the many regulatory battles necessary to make local competition a reality," said Riley Murphy, e.spire Executive Vice President and General Counsel. "Although both sides have reached agreement on many points, a number of key issues remain to be arbitrated. The contract terms e.spire seeks are reasonable commercial arrangements and simply implement the Telecom Act." Some of the 97 issues in dispute are: * Availability of extended links as unbundled network elements. Such links facilitate cost-effective delivery of e.spire's facilities-based services to a broader array of customers. * Critical collocation alternatives and installation intervals. Collocation is the process of placing one carrier's network equipment in another's switching end office. The traditional method, called physical collocation, currently costs competitors hundreds of thousands of dollars for each site. e.spire seeks cost-effective and flexible alternatives such as extended link, shared collocation, and off-site collocation. * Performance penalties. Business contracts typically include language that guarantees performance and provides remedies for failure by one party to meet terms of the agreement. e.spire seeks these standard contract rights for BellSouth's failure to meet installation intervals and other critical implementation metrics. * Compensation for terminating local traffic. e.spire seeks payment to recover its costs for use of its network by BellSouth to terminate local traffic. * The unbundling of advanced telecommunications services. An Order by the Federal Communications Commission in August 1998 requires incumbent monopolies to provide unbundled elements to competitive carriers for data as well as for voice services. As the first competitor to successfully arbitrate network-to-network interconnection for data services in the US West region, e.spire is also seeking those arrangements in the BellSouth region. * Cost-based recurring and non-recurring pricing of unbundled network elements. e.spire is demanding cost-based rates for extended links and for customers to change to a competitor. e.spire is a new breed of telecommunications provider: an Applications Gateway Company (AGC), offering customers next generation services that include voice, high-speed data and Internet solutions and custom business applications. A facilities-based provider, the Company operates multimegabit local, regional and long haul broadband networks throughout the United States. SOURCE e.spire [Copyright 1998, PR Newswire]

To: Stephen B. Temple who wrote (2087)	12/11/1998 7:59:00 AM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Respond to of 3178

Loral and Fantastic To Offer Next-Generation Broadband Services December 11, 1998 NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)Loral Licenses Fantastic's Multimedia Broadcast Technology to Offer Worldwide Satellite-Based, Broadband Multimedia Services Loral Space & Communications (NYSE: LOR) today announced that it has licensed technology from The Fantastic Corporation that will enable it to bring a new generation of satellite-based, broadband multimedia services to market on a worldwide basis. Specific terms of the multimillion-dollar transaction were not disclosed. Service rollout is expected in early 1999. The services, which will be managed and distributed by Loral Orion, will provide broadband infrastructure for multicast delivery of multimedia products and services to corporations, content developers, broadcasters, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and other enterprises that have time-sensitive and complex data requirements. The services capitalize on the Internet Protocol (IP) and Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) open standards, thus allowing multiple forms of data, including video, audio, text and animated graphics, to be broadcast to computers and televisions via set-top boxes. "The Fantastic relationship furthers Loral's goal to become a leader in the emerging broadband services area and is consistent with our plan to offer value-added satellite services," said Gregory J. Clark, Loral president and chief operating officer. "Fantastic's software, in combination with Loral's worldwide satellite-based distribution capabilities, respond directly to the growing demand for customized broadband data delivery systems." "The market's awareness of broadband distribution has climbed steadily in the past year," said Peter Ohnemus, president and chief executive officer of The Fantastic Corporation. Stated John Yapaola, Fantastic's vice president, Americas: "We are thrilled by the strategic relationship with Loral because by early next year, the market will be ripe and receptive to broadband services. We promise to deliver a strong, focused and targeted market execution." Fantastic's software enables customers to book, track and subscribe to sets of broadband multimedia services. Using Fantastic's software, customers can control when and where their content is distributed and pay for the distribution on a per-transaction basis. Content can be organized by the customer and then scheduled for package delivery, real-time feed or video/audio streaming. All of this is accomplished with easy-to-use screen prompts on a personal computer or television using a set-top box. The first broadband content channels using the Fantastic software will provide businesses with news, weather and financial information. Ultimately, these services, which are designed to transmit data efficiently to multiple locations worldwide, will support the creation and reception of a wide range of broadband multimedia content channels. Loral Orion, provider of various Internet and multimedia services to customers around the globe, will send the content through its advanced ground infrastructure to worldwide locations using Loral's global network of high-powered satellites. This will give customers the ability to send multimedia information to all of these regions using one provider. Loral Orion, based in Rockville, Md., is a subsidiary of Loral Space & Communications. Loral Orion is focused on providing global Internet access, data networking and content delivery services. In addition to offering a variety of satellite-based Internet services to ISPs and multinational businesses worldwide, Loral Orion provides managed network services to corporate customers around the globe. Services include data networking, voice, video, teleconferencing and news distribution to multiple points worldwide. For more information, visit Loral Orion's Web site at loralorion.com. Loral Space & Communications is a high technology company that primarily concentrates on satellite manufacturing and satellite-based services, including broadcast transponder leasing and value added services, domestic and international corporate data networks, global wireless telephony, broadband data transmission and content services, Internet services and international direct-to-home satellite services. For more information, visit Loral's Web site at loral.com. Founded in February 1996, The Fantastic Corporation is a leading provider of IP-based, broadcasting software designed for high-speed, broadband distribution of multimedia to PCs and set-top boxes. Fantastic's end-to-end solution enables the creation, management and distribution of unique, high-quality multimedia applications currently not widely available. It combines the reach, efficiency and television quality of broadcasting with the targeted, interactive and globally standardized nature of the Internet and personal computing. The company has offices in Zug and Lugano, Switzerland, New York, Washington DC, San Francisco, London, Paris, Hamburg Sydney and Singapore. For more information, visit The Fantastic Corporation's Web site at fantastic.com. [Copyright 1998, Business Wire]

To: Stephen B. Temple who wrote (2087)	12/11/1998 8:18:00 AM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3178

FCC Scrutinizes Telecom Mergers December 11, 1998 WASHINGTON - The Associated Press : Two major telephone mergers are being closely scrutinized by federal regulators to determine whether they'll be good for consumers. Although regulators are asking tough questions, they're still far from arriving at any answers. The Federal Communications Commission is looking at the planned mergers between Bell Atlantic and GTE, and SBC Communications and Ameritech, to determine whether they serve the public interest, a broad legal standard that can include any impact on competition. The Justice Department also is reviewing the proposed deals. The FCC can approve the mergers, with or without conditions, or block them altogether. FCC officials said neither staff nor commissioners are leaning one way or another at this point, that all options are under consideration and that a decision is months away. Three of the five FCC commissioners did raise concerns about the mergers at an October hearing, and the agency plans a second hearing on the mergers Monday. At the October hearing, FCC Chairman Bill Kennard and commissioners Susan Ness and Gloria Tristani _ wondered why the companies need to merge to compete, particularly for local phone customers. Kennard declined to comment Wednesday. SBC-Ameritech and Bell Atlantic-GTE responded by saying they need the financial muscle and efficiencies they would get from combining to invade states outside their current local phone territories and compete against fellow Bell companies. And, Tristani, in a speech last month, said that while she has an open mind on the mergers, ''In all candor, I'm a little skeptical of the notion that a $25 billion company needs to be bigger before it can successfully compete out-of-region.'' Stephen Carter, SBC's president of strategic markets, said the company on its own could be a ''small niche player'' out of region, serving only big businesses with few services. But it needs to merge to be a national player that can serve residential and business customers with a broad range of services. Doing this, he said, will take 8,000 people and $3 billion. ''We can't do national unless we have the merger go through.'' The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday raised the prospect that one or both of the deals could be blocked. ''Are these mergers running into trouble at the FCC? No, not at this time, I wouldn't say that. I don't think we're that far along,'' Thomas Krattenmaker, one of the people overseeing the agency's review of the mergers, said in an interview Wednesday. And Krattenmaker said he, personally, has not made up his mind. Other FCC officials agreed with Krattenmaker's assessment, but also said that doesn't mean the mergers couldn't hit snags in the future. They spoke on condition of anonymity. Atlanta-based telecommunications analyst Jeffrey Kagan said he doesn't see the FCC just saying no. ''It will boil down to a simple case of the FCC giving a laundry list of demands and conditions for approval.'' The companies believe the mergers will be approved. Executives from all four phone companies say their mergers would boost phone competition, accelerate new services, such as high-speed Internet lines into homes, and probably help lower the prices for phone and other services. [Copyright 1998, Associated Press

To: Stephen B. Temple who wrote (2087)	12/11/1998 8:39:00 AM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

When the ILECs use the Stall-Delay, "there's still a problem tactic", when giving up copper, it only enflames Chairman Kennard>"On its face, this proposal is a sham. On legal grounds, this proposal blatantly violates the Act. USISPA, Major Communications Companies & Trade Associations Urge FCC to Reject ILEC and Computer Companies Proposal December 11, 1998 HERNDON, Va., Dec. 10 /PRNewswire/This ex parte on behalf of the US Internet Service Providers Alliance and major communications companies and trade associations was filed today at the Federal Communications Commission: The Honorable William E. Kennard Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 814 Washington, DC 20554 Re: CC Docket No. 98-147 Dear Mr. Kennard: This ex parte letter is submitted by the undersigned competitive telecommunications and information service companies and associations in response to the joint filing submitted in the above-referenced proceeding on December 7, 1998 by the largest incumbent local exchange carriers (four of the five Regional Bell Operating Companies ("RBOCs") and GTE), and certain computer companies. We urge the Commission to reject this proposal as the latest attempt to undermine the statutory mandates and pro-competitive promise of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"), and extend the RBOCs and GTE's local bottleneck to Internet services. In essence, the proponents' ex parte letter argues that the largest ILECs require a wholesale waiver of key elements of the 1996 Act in order to have the necessary economic incentives to deploy high-speed broadband Internet access technologies such as Digital Subscriber Line ("DSL"). The largest ILECs offer four "concessions," each subject to various technical, economic, and timing limitations: (1) CLECs can utilize collocation for advanced services (common cage, virtual, physical, or cageless, of the ILEC's choosing); (2) CLECs can utilize DSL-capable loops as unbundled network element ("UNEs"); (3) the ILECs' integrated provision of DSL services are subject to existing nonstructural safeguards; and (4) the ILECs' advanced services offerings will not discriminate against unaffiliated ISPs. In exchange for these "concessions," the RBOCs and GTE would receive significant relief from applicable legal requirements, including: (1) no provision of DSL electronics as UNEs; (2) no resale of DSL services at any discount; (3) unlimited transfer of ILEC assets, employees, and services accounts to separate affiliates for up to 12 months; (4) no significant separation requirements; (5) deregulation and detariffing of advanced services rates once half of residential lines have access to DSL services; and (6) granting the RBOCs liberal waivers of interLATA boundaries for data services. On its face, this proposal is a sham. On legal grounds, this proposal blatantly violates the Act. By "promising" to abide by existing nonstructural safeguards and Computer III nondiscrimination requirements, and to grant competitors access to unbundled loops and collocation rights already required by the 1996 Act, the RBOCs and GTE give up nothing. Instead, however, the largest ILECs gain a "get out of jail free" card from the most critical pro- competitive mandates of the Act. This hardly seems like a fair bargain, especially for consumers, who will be denied choice, innovation, reasonable prices, and the other tangible benefits of competition. Furthermore, the large ILECs' "lack of incentives" argument is baseless. The Commission itself has assembled an ample public record proving the futility of these claims. First, the supposed difficulties of providing advanced services such as DSL do not involve building brand-new data networks; instead, existing copper loops and telephone plant are being utilized along with DSLAMs and end user modems. This new equipment is relatively inexpensive and certainly can be deployed by the RBOCs and GTE on a timely basis to most ILEC central offices under existing rules. The competitive deployment of DSL service is not hindered by equipment costs or network upgrades, but rather the fundamental inability of CLECs to obtain reasonable cost-based access to the ILECs' equipment and facilities. The large ILECs also ignore the fact that CLECs must fully compensate the ILECs for the right to utilize DSL-equipped loops, DSL electronics, collocation space, and interoffice facilities. Moreover, contrary to their rhetoric, the RBOCs and GTE already are deploying DSL in response to the perceived competitive threat from cable modems. More importantly, the proposal clearly violates the 1996 Act. As the FCC has already correctly concluded this past August: Section 251(c)(3) requires these ILECs to provide CLECs with unbundled network elements, including DSL-capable loops and accompanying operational support systems ("OSS"), as well as all facilities and equipment used to provide advanced services (such as DSLAMs); Section 251(c)(4) requires these ILECs to offer advanced services such as DSL for resale at wholesale rates; Section 251(c)(6) requires these ILECs to provide competitors with just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory access to collocation space in order to provide advanced services. Section 271 prohibits the RBOCs from providing telecommunications or information services across LATA boundaries without meeting the requirements of Sections 271 and 272 of the Act. Private parties cannot overturn these provisions of the law. It is the free market, and not government, that creates incentives for companies to invest in and deploy new technologies and services. It is the market, and not government, that rewards risk. But where there is not a free market, and instead only a monopoly market like the large ILECs have today, government must do what it can to curb that monopoly and maximize the conditions for competition. In many respects, this proposal is the complete opposite of what the Internet itself represents: openness, innovation, competition, and freedom of choice. Perhaps this explains why, even though these RBOCs and GTE and their allies claim to speak on behalf of Internet providers and Internet users, neither of these constituencies is present at the signature line. It is disappointing that these computer companies have joined the RBOCs and GTE in their proposal. How ironic it is that their proposal to "solve" this "problem " does not even include those it purports to serve -- there are no consumer groups, no user groups, no competitive local exchange carriers, and no Internet service providers. In the view of the undersigned, the key problem facing American consumers is not, as these companies claim, the pro-competitive mandates of the 1996 Act, but rather their continuing refusal to abide by those mandates. The only problem here is the large ILECs' local loop bottleneck, and no amount of deal- making, no matter how big the players, can change that reality. The only way to rid American consumers of that bottleneck and offer all the benefits and services backed up and waiting behind that last mile, is, plain and simple, to enforce the 1996 Act. In accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules, two copies of this letter will be submitted today to the Commission's Secretary's office. Sincerely, UNITED STATES INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ALLIANCE Barbara A. Dooley David Jemmett President Chairman Commercial Internet eXchange Arizona Internet Access Association Association Michael Eggley Joseph Marion President Executive Director Internet Providers Association of Florida Internet Service Iowa Providers Association Chad Kissinger Dax Kelson President President Texas Internet Service Providers Coalition of Utah Internet Service Association Providers Gary Gardner Executive Director Washington Association of Internet Service Providers and the following Companies and Associations: Cronan O'Connell James W. Cicconi Acting President Senior Vice President Association for Local Government Affairs and Federal Telecommunications Services Policy, AT&T Rachel Rothstein Genevieve Morelli Vice President Executive Vice President & General Government Affairs Regulatory and Counsel Cable & Wireless Competitive Telecommunications Association Dhruv Khanna Scott Purcell General Counsel and Vice President President & Chief Executive Covad Communications Officer Epoch Networks Riley Murphy Jonathan E. Canis General Counsel Kelley Drye & Warren LLP e.spire Communications Counsel to Intermedia Communications Jonathan B. Sallet Deborah Howard Chief Policy Counsel Executive Director MCI WorldCom Internet Service Providers' Consortium William L. Schrader Eric W. Spivey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Chairman and Chief Executive PSINet Inc. Officer Netcom Carla Hamre Donelson Richard J. Devlin Vice President & General Counsel Executive Vice President Verio General Counsel & External Affairs Sprint cc: Commissioner Susan P. Ness Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth Commissioner Michael K. Powell Commissioner Gloria Tristani Katherine Brown, Chief of Staff, Chairman Kennard Larry Strickling, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Dr. Robert Pepper, Chief, Office of Plans and Policy The US Internet Service Providers Alliance ( usispa.org) is a coalition of ISP trade associations and independent service providers working to encourage state and federal regulators to demand ILEC compliance with existing regulations and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. SOURCE Commercial Internet eXchange /CONTACT: USISPA: Barbara A. Dooley of the Commercial Internet eXchange Association, 703-709-8200; David Jemmett of the Arizona Internet Access Association, 602-303-9500, ext. 3224; Michael Eggley of the Internet Providers Association of Iowa, 515-830-4034; Joseph Marion of the Florida Internet Service Providers Association, 561-226-9016; Rich Cardenas of the Texas Internet Service Providers Association, 512-322-9200; Sue Ashdown of the Coalition of Utah Internet Service Providers, 801-539-0852; Gary Gardner of the Washington Association of Internet Service Providers, 800-399-2354; Jim Crawford of ALTS, 703-715-0844; Jim McGann of AT&T, 202-457-3930; Katie O'Keefe of Cable & Wireless, 703-734-4474; Kathleen Franklin of the Competitive Telecommunications Association, 202-296-6650; Tom Koutsky of Covad Communications, 793-734-3870; Nancy McHugh of Epoch Networks, 949-862-8383; Peggy Disney of e.spire Communications, 301-361-4259; John Strickling of Intermedia Communications, Inc., 813-829-2864; Deborah Howard of the Internet Service Providers' Consortium, 310-827-8466; Claire Hassett or Peter Lucht of MCI WorldCom, 202-887-2229; Glee Cady of Netcom, 408-881-3227; Michael P. Binko of PSINet, 703-904-4285; James Fisher of Sprint, 202-828-7406; or Steve Silvers of Verio, ssilver@claruspr.com/ [Copyright 1998, PR Newswire]