ARTT v. other BBFW
You hit the main points. Being data-centric, ARTT is focused squarely on the sweet spot of the market. BBFW is fiber-lite, bringing very high-speed broadband to off-fiber buildings at a fraction of the cost and provisioning time of T1/T3.
Why are WCII and TGNT so focused on voice? Voice isn't even the tail of the dog, it's a flea on the tip of the tail. Sidgemore says that by 2005 voice will account for less than 1% of network traffic. TGNT and WCII are stuck with a strategy that locks them into buying expensive voice switches and having to interconnect with ILEC voice networks. By the time they're scheduled to get to EBITDA break-even, LD will be almost free. ARTT is a pure IP network, and their time/dollar cost of buildout is much less than WCII or TGNT.
The Q partnership brings more resources and focus to ARTT than, say, LMGA brings to TGNT. Leveraging Q's local fiber loops and colocation facilities is a big win. ARTT says it expects Q-like resale partnerships with other fiber barons, ILECs, and ISPs.
Yes, ARTT has stumbled around for years, but the last 12 months have brought things into clear focus. ARTT has a "last-mover" advantage, if you will. |
