Global Crossing - GX (formerly GBLX) Message Board

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 : Global Crossing - GX (formerly GBLX)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (2723)	10/18/1999 2:30:00 AM
From: Robert Sheldon	Read Replies (1) of 15615

Within the same metropolitan area, for example, one could start with an ILEC, hand off to a CLEC at the transport service level, ship to an IXC which takes you to an ISP or backbone provider across a LATA boundary, and descend at the opposite end in the reverse order, over yet another set of carriers, altogether. Most of these might be providing you with both physical and upper layer services, but some might be providing you with virtual links at the upper layers, only! All this talk of redundancy and resistance to a single or even two carriers supplying service to a given customer has me a bit baffled . . . GBLX is really a carrier's carrier. That's were I'm a bit hung up on your thought process. Could you elaborate why another carrier would not be of benefit to GBLX by re-selling its procured GBLX bandwidth? The genius of GBLX lies in the simple assumption that while time passes and folks become accustomed to a ubiquitous carrier (GBLX), they (GBLX) are still filling pipes through selling to various other carriers. Thanks in advance for your thoughts Frank.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next