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 : Advanced Fibre (AFCI) ** IPO -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (2756)	10/19/1999 12:47:00 PM
From: Andre Daedone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3299

Mike: I think that the source close to Alcatel should have kept his big mouth shut because if he is right a statement like that can be construed as insider information and not seen as favorable by the SEC. And if he is wrong then he is guilty of a least attempted stock manipulation. AFCI has got a contract with SBC right now so why would SBC not use them with this new deal for a least part of the project. IMO the odds are for SBC using AFCI. Time will tell. Andr‚

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (2756)	10/19/1999 2:51:00 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 3299

Hi Mike: The ALA announcement is suspect. First of all, such an announcement should not made by ALA alone. Some statement from an SBC spokesperson should have accompanied the announcement. Second, there appears much puffery in the statement when ALA alludes to being the "sole" recipient of the entire $6B expenditure program. Third, the local loop portion of the program constitutes $4.5B, not $6B. A later story correct some of these "overstatements." See quote.bloomberg.com Yes, Mike, Litespan, is ALA's NGDLC that can perform the same functions as the UMC 1000, but it can handle many more simultaneous connections. Hence, I see SBC installing the Litespan product along loops where there is a great density of customers. Keep in mind, present SBC strategy is to shorten all copper loops to no greater than 2 miles. This will allow each DSL subscriber who subscribes to the $39.95/mo. plan to receive close to the maximum burstible bandwidth of 1.5M bps. Hence, NGDLCs will be needed along present loops they may extend only 15-18K ft from the CO. One can only assume that these loops carry a hire density of pairs then loops that extend beyond 18K ft. Assuming the UMC 1000 is a less expensive product than the Litespan, IMHO, SBC would use the UMC 1000 to provide the same level of bandwidth to those subscribers at the outer most fringes of the loop. You are correct in that AFCI's upside is probably more contingent on procuring a contract with another teleco that finds the UMC 1000 more applicable to the geographic distribution of its customers. We know, based upon company statements, that AFCI is looking for business overseas. Domestically, I would think USW presents a good potential customer given its widely distributed customer base in the less-populated western states. Right now they're DSL delivers only about 256K bps. Perhaps they're seeing now that this level of bandwidth ain't gonna cut it in the future. The other RBOCs & GTE are also good candidates for additional domestic business. At this point in time, I think the analysts can put a aggregate dollar value on the AFCI-SBC contract. Someone knowledgeable can make an estimate of approximately how many UMC 1000s SBC is going to need domestically based upon existing loop design through its territories, including territory represented by newly acquired AIT. The uncertainty is the "threshold" point at which SBC will opt for the UMC 1000 v. the Litespan. This decision point can only be based upon economics & projected growth patterns for the particular locale. JMO