Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : (LVLT) - Level 3 Communications -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don S.Boller who wrote (2102)	7/13/1999 2:57:00 PM
From: FiloF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3873

Thread: Can someone with a better grasp of this area briefly explain what Grubman's article was trying to say. I understand the conclusion (WCOM - good, local guys - OK, LVLT and others - maybe bad <g>), but my lack of expertise in the area combined with some horrible writing by Grubman (or one of his flunkies) is making me feel a bit dense at the moment. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.

To: Don S.Boller who wrote (2102)	7/13/1999 11:08:00 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 3873

>>NOT A BULLISH ARTICLE<< I couldn't disagree more. You should re-read the report. Take some time to recall the relationship between LVLT and NXLK. "Wholesale" doesn't mean low margins. I think that SSMB is very bullish on LVLT, RCNC, and NXLK.

To: Don S.Boller who wrote (2102)	7/14/1999 10:33:00 AM
From: Kevin G. O'Neill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3873

Don: It may not be bullish, but some of the commentary on the NYT piece is not a lot of other things too, including, "refreshingly clear." I hear a lot of puff about why SSB is brilliant for liking WCOM and for appreciating distinctions within bandwidth "worldviews," but I don't hear a completed thought about LVLT and its business plan of "selling high-end bandwidth-consuming services on a wholesale or enabling basis." >>4) Players that just focus on the bandwidth layer, such as Level 3, have a tougher long-term value proposition. ...we do not view what Level 3 is doing as building a "state of the art" network simply to sell commodity minutes or commodity packets. Rather, we view Level 3's business plan as, in fact, selling high-end bandwidth-consuming services but simply on a wholesale or enabling basis as opposed to on a commercial basis. ...The fact is that there will be companies that have customers who do not have the capabilities to deliver "state of the art"-managed bandwidth services on a national or global basis which is the application layer that Level 3 is striving for.<< Huh? And: >>...we never have and continue not to worry about the notion of a capacity glut given the level of activity surrounding the development of applications to use the bandwidth being deployed.<< Therefore lots of business for LVLT??? Something is a bit screwy here. No?