Hi JDN,
re:
"...reason this stock is sinking is because in past few days several analysts have upgraded the telecommunications industry stocks but in EVERY case GBLX is not included in the upgrade. Has people wondering WHY including me."
IMO, a part of the culpability for the apparent discrepancy you cite in sector classifications resides with GBLX and others, like LVLT, and to a great extent lately, QWST, as well, who have pitted themselves against the old world guard. They have followed the marketure of John Chambers in this respect. I'm not here to judge whether this is right or wrong, only stating my observations. There is no right or wrong.
Note how GBLX has been leveraging the "next generation IP" part in their schtick, while downplaying almost entirely (in some cases, entirely) their role in all things "traditional."
The latest GBLX releases I've read (as do those from LVLT and some of the other Fiber Barons) bear this out. See, for example, the release that was posted here yesterday concerning the deal with Ireland. Does it leave you with the impression that they were about to go out and buy a couple dozen central office CLASS5 switches?
The world of Telecommunications has been artificially divided, to a great extent, into two "worlds": The Old World of legacy telecoms, and the New World of "Next Gens" or "All-IPs".
GBLX prefers to wear the image of the New World, whether it's next gen or all IP. They usually mean the same thing.
[Except that in the execution of the newer [versus the "old"] model, certain practices are gaining adherence which are not being adhered to by GBLX and QWST. LVLT seems to be more in line with it, but only time will tell. For one, the use of a postal rate structure, as opposed to distance- and sometimes time- sensitive ones. But that's a topic for another discussion.]
In actuality, however, GBLX's forte speaks to neither of these imaginary classes, in the main, or exclusively. Instead, it speaks to all. I say this because their DWDM undercarriage, which is what defines them for the most part in terms of their realized revenue potentials, is protocol agnostic to the higher layers of voice, data, etc. The GBLX network will accept a PTT's SDH at STM 16 used for old world voice just as readily as it will take Above.net's IP flows at OC192c.
But as long as they promote the hype which divorces them from the past, they, along with some of the others, must live with the fallout of their own "creation."
Note: I'm not suggesting that this is the only reason for the discrepancy. Groups which rank stocks (analysts, journalists, the mutual funds, etc.) have long had confused notions about what each of these sectors is actually comprised of, and in most cases this is understandable because of the intersections and overlaps which exist.
Stated another way, and IMO, the pigeon-holing of companies into this or that sector has long been done with inaccuracy, thanks to the groupings which the analysts have often only arbitrarily agreed upon, very often through some form of CNBC-sanctioned osmosis.
At the same time, these pigeon holes have in no small way also been helped along by the claims -legitimate, or otherwise- which the companies being classified, themselves, have helped to create.
And so it goes...
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
