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: SteveG who wrote (10039)	1/18/1999 8:02:00 PM
From: transmission	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12468

I do not for one instance believe NXLK and WNP colluded before first auction. The seven sister VC's involved in WNP nearly did yet converged together well before the FCC filing date and even added video and telecom face guys to join their game theory wise professorial President. What we have now is a DEJA VU and something long expected as these two entities could be seen rubbing shoulders as far back as Bear Stearns competitive telecom conference last fall. Entities can not talk once FCC date passed so Winstar or anyone else can't manipulate. In some early other spectrum auction there were charges of signal bidding but subsequent changes have ended this practice, sadly for John Q. Public bid levels have still remained rather depressed. I don't agee with the reply the usually very astute Bernard Levy gave to my post but am a little too lazy now to look back at it exactly. But the remnants do include Puerto Rico and in less populous areas one can have more wide reaching sectors as each angle has its own mulitple OC-3 capacity to distribute to x amount of end users. Spokes connecting hubs do not have to be overlapping millimeter feeds either. One can possibly find fiber to go miles between cities. For instance Iowa I believe has a statewide fiber ring.

To: SteveG who wrote (10039)	1/18/1999 8:41:00 PM
From: Steven Bowen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12468

Hi Steve, <...Zito looks at $$/POP where WNP's spectrum is valued at $6.61/POP or 3.7x the auction price. He states his (or maybe Reagan's?) valuation for TGNT figures to be $16/POP with WCII at $19/POP (but it seems they didn't use channel-POPs) ...> I assume here POP just means population coverage and in no way factors in the quantity of spectrum covering each POP??? This doesn't make any sense to me. At least using channel-pops attempts to compare apples to apples. Especially if we use the Bernard factors (ie one channel at 24 GHz=80 MHz, 28 GHz = 85 MHz, 38 GHz = 100MHz). I wonder how he valued WNP? $695M/114M POP = $6.1/POP If we're to value the licenses on the top 40 markets or so, I'd believe Nextlink has about 1000 MHz, WinStar 750 MHz, and Teligent probably 240 MHz (or so, I don't remember where I put Teligents prospectus). Using Bernards channel factors, I'd say NXLK has 12 channels, WinStar 7.5 channels, and TGNT about 3 channels. It'd be interesting to see how LM factors this in. I would think this would mean you'd have to value winStar's licenses at least twice Teligents, and NXLK's at 4 times Teligents (on a $/POP basis). I suppose that's why he thinks it's a negative for WinStar and Teligent. This would value WinStar's licenses at only around $3.75/POP (instead of their $19/POP) and Teligent at around $1.50/POP (instead of $16/POP). At least I think we're at a point in the game now where the dollar value of the licenses is pretty meaningless. Numbers like these two or three years ago may have sunk us. <...If it's determined that WNP and NXLK agreed BEFORE the last auction to not bid in the same markets, this wouldn't have a bearing on the auction and would not be considered collusion?> I'll be very interested to see if the FCC comments on this. If anyone sees anything, please post. Seems they need another bidding restriction; noone in the auction can sell out to anyone else in the auction within three years.