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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (3730)	5/15/1999 8:27:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Bernard, Well when I read the story, I thought exactly what you did. DOA at the FCC AND the Qwest deal that was shot down only about three months ago. I had forgotten it was US West-Qwest? My guess is that US West has nothing to lose by trying again, especially now. The climate (due to the uproar caused by AT&T's brillant cable plant positioning) is ripe for another shot at a LD deal. It will be very interesting to see how FCC rules on this round. BTW this is not news to Armstrong. I believe he directly stated that he knew that the FCC would soon be allowing the ILECs to do long distance so he wasn't going to waste any time building out the cable plant for local services. He said he will need the local services to replace lost long distance revenues when the ILECs become competitors. But I bet Armstrong didn't think it would happen this soon. Ironically, if it happens, I get a feeling that it may delay the ILEC's broadband rollouts because the ILECs will be so focused on doing long distance. I really wish US West went to the FCC to request, once again, that if they build their broadband networks, then they don't have to let competitors piggyback on it. I think the climate for the FCC agreeing to that request would be much more favorable than letting them do a long distance deal. All just IMHO. MikeM(From Florida)

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (3730)	5/16/1999 12:28:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Bernard, I've been discussing and lurking the Global-USW issue to some extent over in the fiber baron stocks. I think that the QWST marketing arrangement was far different in scope than this is. The arrangement with QWST was seen for what it was (a sham), a foot in the door using some Trojan Horsemanship to sidestep normal regulation of LD services. It didn't work out for the principals the way they wanted. In the GBLX scenario, we're looking at something which is potentially far greater in scope - a merger (of equals, ostensibly). I think that going into such a situation Annunziata and Trujillo would concede, up front, to the FCC and the individual PUCs in the region, the necessary structural separations required to make it work. At the same time they would need to act swiftly to execute on those areas where early synergies could be realized. That is, if all other deal issues are satisfied first, which I think might be a tougher nut to crack. USWest is a safe utility stock with much of it being owned by institutions, pensions, etc. They may not fancy to a continued hold if they suddenly find they have an Interlude stock on their hands. I think that the institutions' influence, in numerous ways, will be just as pivotal as the fed's, and I think that they may be skewed to blocking the deal. They'll make their sentiments known in the market place. So far, I'm wrong it seems, with both stocks moving up nicely on the news on Friday. ---- Another aspect of the deal, the operations-related one, and the issuing surrounding synergies, needs a more informed view than mine. What USWest has done with DSL deployments is nontrivial, and this additional usership could leverage the FRO pipelines (which are leased for the most part from QWST - Oi!). On the other hand, USW's !interprise initiatives might be, to some extent, redundant or incompatible with FRO's activities in the region. Anyone have a better handle on this? In general, I tend to think that GBLX's entire end game has shifted away from becoming the Numero Uno of underseas Deployments, to becoming a much larger all around carrier. We have plenty of those by now. We don't have a Numero Uno Submarine. Is this kind of tradeoff worth it? Does GBLX think that staying the course of an international fiber optic juggernaut may result in dead endsville if they don't move quickly to devour other operations on a global scale? Apparently so. I don't know if this is what I'd be doing at this very time. It presents some plus side possibilities that might mitigate some of my doubts, however. For example, one of my concerns would be that GBLX doesn't have the internal resources to administer so the many initiatives it has started simultaneously, at such an early point in its existence. Consider FRO, C&W underseas ops, USWest, their multi-pronged Crossings rollouts, etc. Perhaps an early hitch with USWest would afford them the additional expertise they need in regulatory matters, for sure the additional financial clout, and so on. It could actually be beneficial for GBLX in their own institutional regard. But a lot of stars and planets would need to be lined up just right, I feel, for this to come off smoothly, if it comes off at all. If nothing else comes out of this early episode for GBLX, Annunziata will have shown the world what kind of appetite he and his fledgling company has for acquisitions, as if such evidence were still needed And maybe in so doing he's put his company's name on the map for good, in more ways than the scribbling of some submarine routes on nautical charts. Regards, Frank