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: jack bittner who wrote (6259)	1/13/2000 11:47:00 PM
From: redwood	Respond to of 12823

just stumbled on this thread an glancing briefly didn't see my present favorite last mile wireless stock being mentioned ...i am long...so here it is...ADAP...ADAP...ADAP.... twst.com redwood

To: jack bittner who wrote (6259)	1/14/2000 6:58:00 AM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

jack- Very good questions. And I know what McGinn would say if you asked him. And I know what Roth would say if you asked him. What you are really asking is to predict the future and who is positioned best for it? My answer is I don't know to 1, 2, and 3. I don't even have an opinion on it. These guys have intimate relationships with the carriers. I'm sure they both came away with different ideas on what they would be ordering up. And even if one of them did hit the nail on the head, look what happened to TLAB and their R&D spending on the AN2100. TLAB spends millions and millions developing it specifically for Sprint. Then Sprint goes and cancels the ENTIRE project. So who lucks out and benefits? Nortel does. Carrier spending is like this. Another reason I like to diversify my infrastructure picks. You can't predict them changing their minds. I wish I had an opinion on it and then I wouldn't be 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. You did leave out Chambers vision and he certainly is no dummy as to what he believes the future of the carrier market is going to be like. Personally, with CSCO, NT, and LU, I spend the least of time on because I have the most long term confidence in their management. So I'm not even that intimate with their HUGE product portfolios. The only opinion I can offer somewhat mirrors Chambers. It's one of execution on the bottom line. Something that Cisco is in the lead with. Lucent is/was next in line. But I have to say, I'm hesitant about Nortel. A quick glance at all their quarterly results over the past six quarters will point out my concern. But then again, the stock price fundamentals reflect this. At least they used to. I'm so out of touch, I don't even know if this is true anymore. I believe NT has risen so much, that they can't fail to stumble without putting a hurting to their market cap. Anyway, that's my $.02 worth. -MikeM(From Florida) PS Did you catch the part where McGinn said (I think it was in their CC) Lucent was going to have a LOT of products for the OC-192 space by mid-2000? I wasn't sure if I heard it correctly, but I thought that is what he said. If so, it blows all your thinking about OC-192 vs. WDM positioning. That's how fast the landscape changes. I can't keep up with it.

To: jack bittner who wrote (6259)	1/14/2000 12:07:00 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Respond to of 12823

Jack - Excellent Post. You summarized the issues and arguments correctly on pros and cons of NT, CSCO and LU. I own NT and do not own LU and CSCO. However, I do not think the carriers will allow a single vendor to gain more than a 50% market share of high speed fiber. Nor will they allow CSCO to maintain its present market share in the router market. They realize the benefits of a competitive landscape. Just my opinion.

To: jack bittner who wrote (6259)	1/14/2000 4:10:00 PM
From: Geof Hollingsworth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

I think you have left one important variable out of the trade-off-DWDM requires tradeoffs among speed, channel count, and distance. Starting with Nortel, the OC-192 expertise in itself is not the key, because it is much harder to fit 10 Gbs signals into the wavelength spacings required by high channel-count systems because it is more sensitive to fiber dispersion and nonlinearity. These are the key challenges to overcome, IMHO. Moving to Lucent, the traditional DWDM approach to modulation is to use NRZ (non-return to zero) signal encoding for each wavelength. Works fine at OC-48, but at 10 Gb/s the NRZ signal is very susceptible to dispersion, which causes the pulse to spread, which limits the effective distance over which the signal can be transmitted. So it looks to me as though each of them has related problems to overcome in going from what they have to where they need to be, and the key is going to be who can do the best job of managing the effect of dispersion and non-linearities on speed, channel count and distance. Some of this (the distortion effects of fiber non-linearities) can be addressed by dispersion compensation devices, and Nortel has been working in this area for awhile. It's not easy, since where you put them varies with the different fiber types (there is a very promising company called LaserComm with a new approach to this). The best solution, however, may lie in the use of .... Solitons! Much has been written about the ability of soliton technology to extend the transmission range of optical systems, for example Gilder (the master of the blindingly obvious) believes this is what NT was after in acquiring Qtera. As noted above, however, the same technology could be used to increase the transmission speed at current distances (OC-768 is theoretically do-able, and and possibly more) or to achieve some better trade-off among the 3 key variables. I expect that this played a role in the decision to acquire Qtera.