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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: djane who wrote (4553)	5/12/1999 10:08:00 AM
From: David Wiggins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

In a very sneaky way, these guys keep pushing the launch schedule back. It's really quite bogus. For example, there were originally two launches scheduled for April, one for May, then one for April, one for May, and one for June around the 8th. Then, none for May, one around June 8th, one for July 1st, and one for July 10th or so. Now, one for June 24th, not June 8th or so. I would not be surprised if the July launches suddenly end up pushed back as well. All the while, these guys are saying we are right on schedule, yada, yada. IMHO it's all a bunch of BS, and it's hard to know what the truth is anymore regarding prospective launch dates or initiation of service. Regards, Dave

To: djane who wrote (4553)	5/12/1999 12:42:00 PM
From: djane	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

WashPost. Satellite Firms Chafe at New Export Controls (via LOR thread) By Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, May 12, 1999; Page A6 The U.S. satellite industry has been staggered by Congress's decision to transfer regulatory control from the Commerce Department to the State Department and place satellite exports under the same stringent licensing requirements as foreign weapons sales, industry executives say. Congress tightened controls over satellite exports last fall in the name of national security as a House select committee headed by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) investigated the alleged transfer of sensitive satellite and missile technology by two U.S. satellite makers to China. The committee's final report is expected to be released next week. The basic step was to move licensing authority from the Commerce Department, which sought to promote exports as a way to help U.S. business, to the State Department, which was thought to be more interested in weighing national security concerns against the advantages of doing business abroad. Industry executives say that since then, licensing bottlenecks in the State Department's woefully underfunded Office of Defense Trade Controls and new Defense Department monitoring requirements have made many routine business transactions nearly impossible. The delays could ultimately threaten America's dominance of the international commercial satellite market, where two-thirds of the customers are outside the United States, they complain. "We've got licenses pending for screws and washers, which makes absolutely no sense from a national security standpoint," said one satellite executive. He predicted the new controls could ultimately cost U.S. companies their competitive edge and shift U.S. market share to France and other foreign competitors "who are a lot less concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information to China than U.S. companies are." For now, however, European and Japanese satellite makers who trade with their U.S. counterparts also are crying foul, saying the new requirements are keeping them from buying and selling components. NATO allies, in particular, have expressed deep concerns about new Defense Department monitoring requirements, saying they are being treated like China, Russia and other less-trusted countries. By shifting regulatory control to the State Department, Congress has forced U.S. satellite makers to obtain licenses and "technical assistance agreements" for numerous aspects of a single satellite sale or foreign launch. The export of basic tools requires a license if they are to be used abroad to work on a satellite. Sharing information with a foreign insurer now requires a license. Even responding to a bid request from a foreign satellite maker interested in buying U.S. components now requires a license. But in shifting jurisdiction – a move requiring hundreds of additional licenses per year – Congress provided no additional funds for the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls. With just a handful of staff, a State Department official said, the office is now promising to issue licenses in 90 days – a third longer than Commerce typically required – at a time when many U.S. makers of satellite components have just 30 days to bid on foreign contracts. But even if more money can break the licensing bottleneck – $8 million is moving through Congress for the coming fiscal year – the burden of Defense Department monitoring could remain, defense officials say. While Congress mandated that Defense Department monitors be present whenever U.S. satellites are launched on Chinese or Russian rockets, the Clinton administration decided to place monitoring requirements of its own on all technical transactions as well – including those involving allies. Under those requirements, U.S. companies selling commercial telecommunications satellites must give the Defense Department 15 days' notice of any meeting in the United States with foreign customers, so Pentagon monitors can attend. Foreign meetings require 40 days' notice, and even overseas telephone calls require five days' notice to the Pentagon. No such monitoring is required for any foreign weapons transactions. One senior administration official defended such monitoring of technical discussions with allies, saying U.S. satellite makers have consistently broken the law and discussed "expansive" information regarding satellites and satellite technology with foreign entities. "If they play by the rules, we'll see where we go from here," the official said. Satellite industry spokesmen concede that two U.S. satellite makers are under criminal investigation for passing unauthorized data to China about the cause of two Chinese rocket failures. But raising national security concerns about routine business dealings between a U.S. satellite maker and a European telephone company, they say, amounts to overkill that can only harm national security in the long run. "Why would a U.S. satellite manufacturer want to teach somebody about satellite technology or how to build a satellite?" asked Clayton Mowry, executive director of the Satellite Industry Association. "We own 75 percent of the market. What would be the point of sharing this information with a satellite operator?" Cox said his committee's forthcoming report will deal in detail with concerns about the conduct of U.S. satellite makers. But he said the committee has no interest in turning the State Department into a licensing sinkhole, or insisting upon monitoring routine business transactions with NATO allies. "If that's going on, we have an instinct for the capillary, instead of the jugular," Cox said. "Anybody can determine the difference between the Dutch and the People's Republic of China." © Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company Back to the top