SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (4672)5/18/1999 11:08:00 AM
From: djane  Respond to of 29987
 
Insurers Lose Over $2.25 Billion On Satellite-Launch Failures

May 17, 1999


Major Business News

By JEFF COLE and DEBORAH LOHSE
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

A 16-month run of failed commercial-satellite launches has cost insurers
more than $2.25 billion and made them eager to double premiums, say
insurance and satellite executives.

But it remains to be seen how big an increase can be imposed on launch
customers, since the marketplace is thick with insurance providers.

Just 18 months ago, the launch-insurance market seemed especially
lucrative to hungry underwriters. But it has turned poisonous since then
because of a series of mishaps. Many involve newer U.S. rocket types,
while others relate to malfunctioning U.S.-made satellites.

The troubles have shaken the confidence of underwriters and sent shivers
of concern through the U.S. aerospace industry, which worries that sharply
higher insurance premiums could further erode U.S. competitiveness in
satellite launching and manufacturing.

Two failed commercial-satellite launches during the past three weeks have
cost insurers about $425 million, a big chunk of the world-wide premiums
collected for that type of insurance last year, insurers note. The larger
estimate of $2.25 billion represents the combined losses from global
commercial satellite and rocket malfunctions since January 1998.

That total excludes more than $3 billion in losses from three major failures
that weren't insured. Those three failures involved costly U.S. government
satellites aboard Titan IV heavy-lift rockets made by Lockheed Martin
Corp. of Bethesda, Md. Taxpayers must eat those losses.

In the case of commercial launches, as many as a dozen primary insurers
share the risk by syndicating the insurance contract. More risk is sold off to
big reinsurance firms that don't specialize in the launch trade.

Simon Clapham, underwriter for the Marham Space Consortium, a part of
the Lloyd's of London insurance market, says the long run of losses
indicates premium rates should double for launches that are to take place
during the year 2000. Mr. Clapham says premiums are likely to increase
somewhat, although the many providers have yet to see "whether we're
capable" of doubling premium rates.

Other experts agree, suggesting increases will take hold as some providers
reluctantly exit from the market. Weston Hicks, an analyst at J.P. Morgan
Securities, said insurer losses are running so high that, unless the problems
in 1998 are written off as unusual, "you are going to see capacity come out
of the market" and prices go up.

The launch industry is booming amid rising demand for satellites to provide
mobile-phone services, data transmission and direct-to-home television.

By late 1997, insurers realized they could snare premiums of as much as
$30 million to cover just one launch of a high-orbit communications satellite
and a medium-lift rocket costing a combined $200 million. Such premiums,
representing between 12% and 14% of the total cost, seemed logical.
About one in seven satellite launches are a partial failure or worse, either
because a rocket malfunctions or a satellite doesn't operate properly.

The flood of insurers stirred competition, and premiums have fallen to
between 7% and 10% of the amount at risk, Mr. Clapham estimates.
Terms, such as the length of time the satellite is insured for proper
operation, also have been relaxed.

In the most recent two failures, an Ikonos imaging satellite was destroyed
after a launch attempt using a new Lockheed Martin rocket type. Earlier
this month, Boeing Co.'s new Delta III rocket failed for the second
consecutive time and left an Orion 3 communications satellite in a useless
orbit.

Insurers cite a much longer string of losses, including last year's failed
launch of 12 satellites for the Globalstar Telecommunications Ltd.
mobile-phone system on a Ukrainian rocket, and the August loss of a
major satellite for PanAmSat Corp., when Boeing's Delta III failed the first
time. One satellite failure knocked out paging services, while other
shortcomings brought big claims from the EchoStar Communications Corp.
TV service and Iridium LLC, a mobile-phone service.

Bernard Schwartz, chief executive of Loral Space & Communications
Ltd., which operates Globalstar and built Orion 3, says satellite and
rocket makers are "pushing the envelope technically" in response to
customer needs. However, he said premium increases are likely to be
modest because in better times "this has been a very lucrative area" for
insurers.
Return to top of page | Format for printing

Copyright © 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.




To: djane who wrote (4672)5/18/1999 11:12:00 AM
From: djane  Respond to of 29987
 
DJ Iridium Says Satellite Failure Adds $39M To 1Q Loss

May 17, 1999


Dow Jones Newswires


By BRIAN STEINBERG
Dow Jones Newswires

NEW YORK -- Iridium World Communications Ltd. (IRID) said the
disposal of a malfunctioning satellite resulted in a loss of approximately $39
million in its first quarter.

The company disclosed the information in a quarterly filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Iridium said the loss was included as a component of general operating
expense in its first-quarter condensed consolidated statement of loss.

Iridium said the satellite was replaced by Motorola Inc. (MOT) with a
spare in-orbit satellite as part of a contract between the two companies.

The Washington, D.C., satellite-communications operator said last week
that it could not meet key terms of an $800 million credit facility. The
company also said it hired Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette to help it review
and restructure its debt.

- Brian Steinberg; 201-938-5218
Brian.Steinberg@dowjones.com

Copyright © 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.




To: djane who wrote (4672)5/18/1999 12:08:00 PM
From: djane  Respond to of 29987
 
tele.com article. Too Much of a Good Thing for Wireless?

Growth in subscribers stretches network
capabilities

By Meg McGinity. Meg McGinity is senior
editor/wireless for tele.com. She can be reached at
mmcginit@cmp.com

Wireless business is good. But is it too good? Maybe--at least
for the time being. It's certainly worth posing the question to
AT&T Wireless Services Inc. (Kirkland, Wash.). The carrier's
popular Digital OneRate, which gives subscribers 600 minutes
of local and long-distance service for $90 a month, has lured
more than one million subscribers to its service since debuting
last year. From AT&T's standpoint, that's good business.

Yet some analysts and customers may not be so sure. They
admit the strategy has resulted in a subscriber boon for
AT&T. But many have publicly complained that the tempting
offer--and others like it in the wireless market--have
overextended these networks, resulting in some spotty
wireless service, especially in the overcrowded New York
City market. That isn't necessarily good business, they say.

The wireless service issue was brought to center stage recently
when AT&T Wireless experienced a 22-hour service outage
in upper Manhattan that carried through almost all of Mother's
Day. AT&T was quick to point out that the outage was not
related to capacity. Rather, it stemmed from a combination of
hardware and software problems that are still being
investigated, according to Ericsson Inc. (Research Triangle
Park, N.C.), the carrier's equipment provider.

Others say that regardless of the reason, the outage
underscores concerns that many wireless networks, including
that of AT&T Wireless, are being oversold. "Their network is
becoming quickly oversubscribed," says Bob Egan, senior
analyst at Gartner Group Inc. (Stamford, Conn.). "People are
getting concerned about the fast busy signals and dropped
calls."

Customers get a fast busy if the network itself is not
provisioned, meaning a call has made a radio frequency (RF)
connection but can't connect to a landline. Cells that receive
the incoming calls can also be congested, resulting in dropped
or lost calls, says Paul Sergeant, senior manager product
marketing in the code-division multiple access (CDMA)
business group at Nortel Networks Corp.

It's little wonder that networks are becoming saturated at their
busiest points, typically metropolitan areas such as New York
and Boston. Subscribers and usage are soaring. The Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA,
Washington, D.C.) reports almost 70 million wireless
subscribers in the United States alone by the end of last year,
up from 45 million in 1996. Couple that with a 65 percent
jump in the average minutes of usage last year, to 160, and
that's a recipe for an overburdened network, warns Jane
Zweig, executive vice president at Herschel Shosteck
Associates Ltd. (Wheaton, Md.).

The surge presents carriers with a simple dilemma: When does
too much of a good thing become a bad thing? "This [rising
subscribers] is a nice problem to have, as long as you don't
lose a ton of traffic," says Andrew Cole, principal wireless
analyst at Renaissance Worldwide Inc. (Lincoln, Mass.).

Carriers are aware of the danger. AT&T spokesman Ken
Woo says his company has doubled its capital budget to $2
billion this year in order to fix any capacity problems, but that
the solution doesn't rest entirely with AT&T. Equipment
shortages in the New York market have hindered AT&T's
ability to ease congestion problems, Woo says.

"We are making significant progress meeting capacity
challenges," says Rod Miller, global accounts vice president of
business operations at Ericsson. AT&T and Ericsson are
working together to increase switching capacity and the
number of radios in the network, which should help relieve any
capacity problems by the end of the month.

Of course, AT&T isn't the only wireless carrier having growing
pains. Bell Atlantic Mobile (BAM, Bedminster, N.J.)
reportedly has had its share of growth-related problems in
Boston. "A capacity demand has been placed on us," says
Dick Lynch, chief technical officer at BAM. "Our Boston
market remains our biggest challenge, but it is not a crisis. It's
a day-to-day challenge to stay incrementally ahead."

The company is trying to do just that by spending $700 million
this year alone on the network. It has already used up the
capacity on its first CDMA carrier in Boston and is now on its
second. Lynch says BAM has seen total usage increase on the
national network by double-digit percentages in a month's
time.

Providers are well aware that wireless technology can ease the
strain. Digital, for example, is a more efficient use of spectrum,
says Tom Sawanobori, director of integrated network planning
at AirTouch Communications Inc. (San Francisco). This is
why operators are pushing customers over from analog.

More important may be constant upgrades. At least that's the
position at Sprint PCS (Kansas City, Mo.). "We are adding
carriers and cell splits on a daily basis. There is not a capacity
crunch today that is significant, but there is significant work
going on to stay ahead of customer requirements," says Keith
Paglusch, senior vice president of operations. That's good
business.

Copyright © 1999 tele.com
All Rights Reserved.




To: djane who wrote (4672)5/18/1999 12:10:00 PM
From: djane  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 29987
 
For Maurice. tele.com. Fixed Price: Going Once ...

by David Ticoll. David Ticoll is managing director and
CEO of the Alliance for Converging Technologies
(Toronto), a research and consulting firm that specializes
in innovative business strategies for the digital economy.
He can be reached at dticoll@actnet.com.

Is fixed pricing on its way out? We're starting to see signs that
this might be happening in both business and retail
transactions, even in markets where fixed price has never been
entirely dominant. Consider these online businesses:

* Priceline lets consumers "name their price" for air travel,
hotel rooms, cars and mortgages. In exchange for these deals,
buyers give up specific control over choice of supplier (which
airline, for example) and other conditions of the deal (they can
pick the date of travel, say, but not the number of stops).

* Onsale has a healthy auction business in overstocked and
slightly obsolete electronics and other products. Many of these
products were traditionally sold at discount; now they've
shifted to a more lucrative auction model.

* Bill Hambrecht--lately of the investment firm Hambrecht &
Quist, which he founded--is launching a new business. It will
use a Dutch auction format (which begins at a "high" price and
moves downward) to price and allocate shares of initial public
offerings (IPOs). Hambrecht's approach takes pricing power
away from investment banks and will be a lot cheaper for
issuing companies. And anyone will be able to vie for access
to new issues, not just the underwriters' favorite clients.

* A new startup called FreeMarkets is challenging the way
businesses conduct competitive procurement. The traditional
"sealed bid" approach gives vendors a modicum of price
protection, but FreeMarkets has developed a new process for
setting up and running real-time bidder auctions. Buyers like
Caterpillar and Siemens claim to have saved 20 percent or
more over the old way of doing things.

These new "open market" models are certainly in the interest
of customers, who gain in choice and often in price. But,
surprisingly, they often benefit sellers as well. Onsale's
suppliers are getting rid of more stuff--faster and for better
prices. Hambrecht's issuers will save on road shows (which
will be done over the Net) and will likely get prices much
closer to the skyrocketing first-day values now enjoyed by
"flippers."

Why is this happening? Open markets prevail where the
"transaction costs" associated with real-time price negotiation
are lower than the variable range of price uncertainty. It's not
worth a consumer's while to negotiate the price of a bottle of
milk every time she goes to the supermarket. But if she could
force several supermarkets to compete over discounts in
exchange for her long-term business, it might be worth it. The
Internet makes such things possible: It reduces the costs
associated with time, distance and demand aggregation that
have restricted mass-market price negotiation.

All this will apply to a variety of telecom businesses. We will
see the emergence of a new class of companies that aggregate
customer demand segments and force suppliers to aggressively
compete for long-term (and even short-term) commitments.
Price discovery mechanisms, which subtly define the
advantages and disadvantages of various players, are also
going through a period of change. Priceline has even
convinced the U.S. government that its price discovery model
is worthy of a patent. The Securities and Exchange
Commission has accelerated its battles with NASDAQ, the
American Stock Exchange and others in order to level the
price discovery playing field in the securities industry.

Telecom companies need to prepare for the opening up of this
new frontier and identify the opportunities and threats that it
represents. It might be a good idea to talk to some of your
folks who learned the auction game at the feet of the Federal
Communications Commission about how to apply their
knowledge to the emerging price discovery markets for
telecom companies and their customers.

Questions or comments on this column?
Copyright © 1999 tele.com
All Rights Reserved.