Ken, I've commented on LVLT's stated intentions (versus what they actually wind up doing) several times, most notably when they decided to deviate from their own stated commitments to become an entirely IP based service provider.
On one occasion they decided to acquire a traditional Data CLEC (XCOM) that was using run-of-the-mill and everyday switched-circuit platforms, such as V.34 access concentrators, ISDN, and I think frame relay, etc. ( albeit souped up versions, ostensibly), and on another occasion when they decided to incorporate FORE Systems ATM gear in parts of their network.
I should note also that this was about the same time that QWST, themselves, decided to bifurcate their transport platform and use both ASND Bxx-5yy ATM and Frame boxes, and CSCO Model 12,000 routers, each of which operating over separate fiber/lambda meshes. Hey, when you've got as much bandwidth as QWST, you can flaunt it!
My statements about LVLT were my own observations that I made concerning their apparent back-peddling on this issue, and were geared to exposing the fact that even with all of LVLT's (or anyone else's at this time) best intentions (--which I believe LVLT actually has, with regard to fulfilling an all-IP future--) there is no escaping the need to be backwards compatible with legacy technologies, which still make up 98+% <?> of all existing access and transport systems to and from end users and their traditional providers. This is why XCOM was characterized in LVLT's own literature as being a part of their "bridging" strategy to the future.
Hope this explains my previous comments, and Best Regards, Frank C. |
