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 : WCOM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tradelite who wrote (4523)	5/21/1999 5:26:00 PM
From: PDL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11568

I would be sort of surprised if it was WCOM jumping ship for the NYSE. MCI's Bill McGowan was a huge proponent of the Nasdaq because he hated monopolies (and the specialist system of the NYSE smacks of monopolies). I assume Bernie is equally against monopolies although I don't know if that extends to the NYSE. Regardless, there is no difference between the additional shares authorization on the Naz vs. the NYSE. And the only thing dilutive about the extra shares is if it buys companies (and current/future earnings) that don't match WCOM's current/future earnings. Bernie has made a very big deal about how he is dead-set against dilutive deals in wireless... and he seems to be the master at finding hidden value (eg, economies and fat to trim) in the many companies he has acquired. So I don't worry about Bernie being frivolous in his use of the additional shares with any seriously dilutive acquisitions. JMHO.

To: Tradelite who wrote (4523)	5/21/1999 5:37:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11568

Local Phone Carriers Win Long-Distance Charge Fight (Update1) Bloomberg News May 21, 1999, 4:02 p.m. ET Local Phone Carriers Win Long-Distance Charge Fight (Update1) (Adds AT&T reaction in 11th paragraph.) Washington, May 21 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. local telephone companies won a federal appeals court fight that could let them charge tens of millions of dollars more to complete long-distance calls in their regions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia told federal regulators to reexamine part of a complex formula used to determine how much the regional Bells, GTE Corp. and other local carriers can charge long-distance companies such as AT&T Corp. to patch through calls. Long-distance carriers then can pass on those access charges to consumers. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission rules at issue require local phone companies to reduce their access charges every year to reflect their improved productivity. Local carriers argued the FCC is forcing them to relinquish too much of the money they save. Writing for a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Williams today said the FCC ''failed to state a coherent theory'' for its formula. The court sent the case back to the agency for a better explanation. The FCC rules are meant to give consumers much of the benefit of technological improvements that make the local phone business more efficient, while ensuring the Bells and GTE retain an incentive to streamline their businesses. The court fight centers on the percentage by which the FCC plans to reduce the permissible charges every year. It calculates the percentage, known as the ''X-factor,'' by comparing gains in local phone-business productivity to similar improvements in the entire U.S. economy. In 1997 the FCC, looking at productivity figures over the previous decade, concluded the reasonable range for the X-factor was between 5.2 and 6.3 percent. The agency then selected 6.0 percent as the X-factor it would use. Lower Figure Sought The Bells and GTE attacked that conclusion at the appeals court, saying the FCC should have selected a lower figure. Every 0.1 percent change translates into $23 million in access charges. Williams said the FCC's selection of the X-factor seemed arbitrary. ''None of the reasons give for choosing 6.0 percent holds water,'' he wrote. Long-distance companies argued unsuccessfully that even 6.0 percent was too high. The appeals court rejected related appeals by AT&T, MCI WorldCom Inc. and other long-distance companies. ''No matter what adjustment formula is used, the fact remains that access prices are outrageously high to begin with,'' AT&T General Counsel Jim Cicconi said. One regional phone company, BellSouth Corp., called on the FCC to consider broad policy changes when it reviewed the issue. ''This ruling cries out for the FCC to use it as an opportunity to address both access charge reform and universal service subsidies in a comprehensive way,'' BellSouth Corp. General Attorney Robert Sutherland said. The access charges help pay for a complex subsidy system designed to make local phone service affordable. An FCC spokeswoman said the agency will seek a stay of the ruling until it can file a request for reconsideration. The agency also could ask the Supreme Court to review the case.