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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (5926)	11/11/1999 1:42:00 PM
From: Daniel G. DeBusschere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

<<The Commission indicated that while the RBOCs would have to wholesale connection services out of a packet outside plant network to all competitors, it would NOT have to wholesale UNEs out of that plant (in general; there were some limits here that aren?t important for this summary).>> ********************** Does this mean that if SBC runs a fiber link to a remote AFCI DSLAM then there is no requirement to wholesale anything (i.e. transport facility) on this subsystem? Thanks for the significant contribution to this thread.

To: elmatador who wrote (5926)	11/11/1999 2:07:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

"What's really interesting about this announcement is that SBC says it's going to be based on, guess what, ATM!.....The press is clueless in this absolutely pivotal event. The FCC ruling wasn't covered at all, and the coverage of the SBC announcement not only omitted any insights, it also omitted most of the facts in the release. One national rag did about a third of a page on the release and never even pointed out that this was an ATM play." "Access infrastructure changes like the SBC one are more important in a revenue sense than IP in the near term, at least. SBC will spend about a year's worth of router sales on this modernization alone...A vendor play based on filling the need for big routers is, at the very least, aiming at, "where they're not," in a marketing sense. Until access changes, demand for larger core boxes can't develop." ________________________________ elmatador and Thread, Great report! Lots of very interesting facts in their that Last Mile investors can take advantage of. As a matter of fact, I noticed two items that appear to me, to bode well for someone like Newbridge Networks(sym:NN). SBC did for a fact name NN as a vendor for their Project Pronto (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=11796491). I've been trying to figure out what their role will be. elmatador's article does give me a few clues. First, as can be seen above, ATM was mentioned by SBC in their Pronto broadcast. I was left scratching my head too because they clearly said ATM was king, yet as elmatador's article points out, the press didn't really pick this up? And as most know, NN is supposedly the king of ATM switching. Now to be specific, SBC said they were going to a, "ATM-IP," architecture. This was going to start at their, "Neighborhood Gateways,"(I'm assumming it's an NGDLC), and run throughout their CO-Co trunking network. Can anyone tell me what the significance of ATM vs. ATM-IP is? I figured since they threw in the IP part, this must have thrown the reporters for a loop as it did me. Secondly, I don't understand it, but the second clip above says SBC won't need the big routers most telecom equipment vendors have/are developing. So I'm wondering if SBC is just going to stick a bunch more 12Gb/s class ATM switches out there and these will suffice? If so, I'm guessing Newbridge probably sells one of the cheapest smaller ATM switches in the market today, the good old Mainstreet 36170 Multiservices Switch. Can anyone verify if this makes any sense? Now the kicker is, NN gave their "Excuse CC," one day before SBC released the Project Pronto announcement. So obviously, Terence did not say one thing about Project Pronto. I'm sure he was dying to, but he showed restraint and didn't say a word. But you would think, NN would have done a subsequent press release stating their involvement with Project Pronto? I guess I need to browse their website and see if I can pick up any more details. NN sure does bumble about a lot. But one of these days you would think they would pop up in the right place at the right time.<G> Thanks, MikeM(From Florida)