Frank, i think we are all pretty much in agreement that the assemblage known as Global Crossing Ltd. have been more than a little vague about several issues, including the future contributions (or lack thereof ) that each of Frontier's “three cities” is expected to make to the over all Tale.
IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.... it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Hopefully, the Company will soon remember their public statement that Second Quarter Results will be released in July and they will use both a Press Release and a Conference Call to communicate their corporate strategy. Perhaps it is best to leave off our speculation for a day or two and pray for guidance from Management.
While we are waiting for word from above, there are a two statements is your post that left me significantly perplexed. They seem almost contradictory:
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.....
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? ....
I don't recall you using the term “convergence freaks” before. I had been under the impression that you where among us that believe that the goal should be to move all traffic (including voice) to an IP network ASAP. Have you left the faith? Or do you believe that there are formitable Forces that need to be battled with first?
Surely you have not forgotten the plight of the hundreds of millions of Internet users that now held captive by the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network). I find it had to believe that any LEC still believes they can solve the problem by adding more switch trunk ports or IMT's.
I believe the only viable solution is the installation of new “intelligent” network switches that are a combination of remote access concentrators integrated with a fault tolerant computer that provide SS7 signaling and other control and management functions. These gateways would, of course, bypass the PSTN switches.
Where your statements above meant to imply that:
1. QoS issues will push true Convergence so far into the future that companies now making strides in that direction may be forced to take a step or two back.
2. The Incumbents still wield sufficient power to prevent (for whatever reason) integration for the foreseeable future.
I would think that as long as either of those statements is true, it would be best if the overall FRO component of GBLX remain content to continue in a tri-furcated state, occupying camps in three different cities
Then again, i have no comment until we get the word from Annunziata and friends.
Thanks again for your insight. |
