Thanks, Bill. That received a chuckle here. I actually had done one of those long tomes yesterday that tied in LVLT to this discussion, but I blew it off in anticipation of your comment. Couldn't resist.
My point in that message was that GBLX is in a position to do two things. Not surprisingly, one is wholesaling (as they've been doing) and the second is formulating an internal product mix for retailing.
In a nutshell: Given the trajectory of a couple of years that it would take GBLX to make a dent in cross-connecting the continents, all the while continuing their wholesaling activities, this would have given them ample time to create a next generation service mix based on packet delivery, almost exclusively. In a manner similar to Enron's and LVLT's stated objectives. This genre of carrier/SP (especially LVLT, based on my knowledge to date) would have been a better fit for this kind of strategy than FRO, IMO. I tend to discount QWST's candidacy in this regard due to a host of other reasons, some of which are overlapping with the above, and some potentially having to do with leadership conflicts, which is only an offhand assumption on my part, a gut feel, thus far.
In my opinion, FRO is still nourished in large part by old thinking out of the Rochester Tel legacy, despite their acquisition of massive amounts of QWST's fiber capacity. GlobalCenter, notwithstanding.
Others will say that the switched paradigm will not go away internationally anytime soon, and they'd be right. And one of the reasons they'd be right can be seen in this recent decision by GBLX to go with FRO. It's a self fulfilling phenomenon, to a great extent, when we talk about these kinds of decisions that are made on this scale. Again, IMO. Frank_C. |
