Teddy, thanks for highlighting the FRO numbers and bringing the question of future CLEC acquisitions by GBLX up for discussion.
FRO is like a tale of three cities to me at this time.
- The Switch-head derivative which favors CLEC action (the Rochester Tel component)
- The Promise of IP (which tends to leave the lingering question on the table: "is-the-world-really-round-or-flat?" This is the Global Center IP routing and backbone component, as the world moves towards application level convergence. If FRO blindly overshoots the IP angle, they may have to revert back to where the convergence freaks land up, once the ITU's legacy-minded and otherwise 'net-clueless vendor operatives finish bastardizing the Public Internet)
- The Unknown and Experimental (the Application Service Provider, or ASP component, and its early service bureau-like beginnings)
How do these forces form a resultant vector? And, is it fair to assume that only one dominant vector will remain standing?
Once determined, do full blown CLECs fall within the beam of that vector[s]? Or, is GBLX simply interested in a means of last mile delivery without the embellishments of central office junk heaps which will be, almost with certainty, supplanted by routing and forwarding code in the not too distant future?
Or, will the overall FRO component of GBLX remain content to continue in a tri-furcated state, occupying camps in three different cities, going forward?
I've seen some eye wash that touches on some of these issues, but I have yet to see a well thought-out direction statement, yet. And given the rapid fire nature of events in the past two months, that is understandable to some degree. But I think that Winnick, Annunziata et al would be well served -- indeed shareholders would be better served, at the same time -- if they presented a framework strategy statement that puts at least some of these issues, if not all of them, on some kind of a discernable course for review. Comments welcome.
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
