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 : Newbridge Networks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (12750)	8/15/1999 11:55:00 AM
From: zbyslaw owczarczyk	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 18016

Tunica,after WCOM took over MCI most of the original NN contract with MCI(fall 97)was lost. Major portion of former MCI was made form old 36150. However,since merger NN has been consistently shipping limited amount of 36170 to MCI, which is using NN gears to power aviation authority network. I want to emphasize:aviation authority network. Why this network was not switch to others gears ? I think you know the answer-people live is priceless! Also since fall of 98 NN has been shipping software upgrade(I think they call it 3.1 version?) to its customer. Some of them are BT,Bell Atlantic,C&W,MCI(limited shipment),SBC etc. During first half of 1999,Bell Canada was performing massive upgrade too. Did you hear about any serious problems. I did not. Anyone else? Zbyslaw

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (12750)	8/15/1999 1:05:00 PM
From: Ian@SI	Respond to of 18016

Re LUMENON: It does sound an awful lot like a pump and dump scheme. Until I was able to independently verify each assertion made in the article, I'd tend to be very cautious about the story and the stock. FWIW, Ian.

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (12750)	8/15/1999 1:34:00 PM
From: topstock	Respond to of 18016

This is what I got techstocks.com Regards, TOPSTOCK

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (12750)	8/15/1999 3:52:00 PM
From: pat mudge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18016

The other day while discussing Lucent's culpability in the WCOM crisis, I closed a post with, "There but for the grace of God. . ." and yet it bears repeating that networks are complex and even superior products and designs can get hit by any number of problems --- lack of alternate trunk groups, poor preventative maintenance, and human error, to name a few. In other words, what happened to Lucent could happen to anyone, including Newbridge. Unfortunately for LU, the fallout from WCOM's mishandling of the crisis will be real --- the negative press from CBOT alone will do untold damage, deserved or not. It's almost frightening, but the final blame lies with the carrier. Look at the difference between AT&T's response a year ago and MCI/WCOM's now: * ATT: April 14, 1998, ATT holds a conference call with CEO Michael J. Armstrong: att.com Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. To say the least, this has been a very difficult 20 hours for our customers. At about 3:00 pm EDT yesterday, the AT&T frame-relay network across the United States experienced outages. And frankly, these outages let our customers down. And I want to apologize to each and every one of them. AT&T has stood for reliability and still does. It is at the core of our service and our customer relationship, and it is a top priority for every AT&T person and for me personally. We now know the outage resulted from a problem between two of our frame-relay switches, or nodes, and that the outage then spread throughout our complete frame-relay network. In just a moment, Frank Ianna, the head of our network operations, will share with you what we know about the source of the problem and give you a status report on our restoration efforts. But, first, I would like to make three points, if I may. . . * MCI/WCOM: August 9, 1999, four days after first outages, WorldCom spokesperson Linda Laughlin is quoted: newsalert.com August 11, 1999, still no formal response from WCOM, Linda Laughlin is quoted again: interactive.wsj.com August 13, 1999, eight days into crisis, the company releases first official response, no one takes responsibility, no one quoted, Ebbers not even mentioned: wcom.com *Customer response: August 13, 1999, CBOT goes public with its wrath: newsalert.com I would think most companies have contingency plans for just such an emergency --- how the press will be handled and how every segment of the company will respond. I'm talking the ol' elementary school nuclear attack drill --- siren goes off, this is what you do. . . Well, come to think of it, Ebbers may be under his desk right now, hands over his head. . . Enough of that, the fog's burned off and the day awaits --- Pat