Hi Doug,
>>he mentioned they're betting on start-ups for future revenue. This is flawed in it's fundamental application. First of all, startups would not need DWDM
initially for as startups they aren't experiecing fiber exhaust. Right?<<
Perhaps, if the startup was a fiber baron type like QWST (who, BTW, has been notoriously averse to using WDM thus far), but increasingly Interstate startups are doing indefeasible right of use (IRU) deals for one and two strands at a time with the aforementioned Barons, and they need the technology as a fundamental tenet of doing business. Even larger carriers (like Frontier and some of the newer Tier One ISPs fit this category on certain routes, where they see the benefit of installing a couple of DWDMs and associated fiber amps along the routes, as opposed to trenching and hauling, say, 48 or 96 strands or more, thousands of miles.
>> Second, they would be spending their capital dollars on more basic interoffice and loop equipment like DLC and DCS systems not DWDM. DWDM is a "after-the-fact" product that would bandaid an otherwise exhaust situation and proves in when compared to deploying additional fiber optic cable. Startups don't have this problem. If they need bandwidth, they'll simply start at the OC-192 rate and grow as the equipment grows.<<
I see where you're coming from, then. You're referring to CLECs whereas I was referring to interstate exchange carriers or IECs. In that case, I would be more inclined to agree with your assessment, but still not 100%. But that's only my take on it, FWIW,
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
