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 : Frank Coluccio Technology Forum - ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (1176)	2/17/2000 7:32:00 AM
From: James Fulop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1782

Thanks for the Bloomberg update. As for your challenge, I really don't feel qualified to write about this situation in a public forum (which is precisely why I was asking the experts here,) but I will do so anyway even if it means looking silly. Just not until the weekend as I have too many other fires to put out right now. Regards

To: ahhaha who wrote (1176)	2/17/2000 7:43:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1782

re: CIEN+JNPR mix James, AHhaha, et al, The question is an interesting one. It's easy to say: "Sure, it makes sense if they want to compete in a global market," but when you look deeper, certain conflicts and co-dependencies emerge which I'd like to examine. If CIEN and JNPR take the plunge, then they've pretty much placed themselves on the exterior of any other large router's integration plans. Okay, things don't always work that way. At a minimum they would at least need to maintain availability of discrete network elements for those service providers who want stand alone capabilities of each, in addition to any combining of the two that they would do. NT very likely spent a lot of time evaluating this in the past, and they've done very well thus far maintaining a lead in the optical space as a virtual "pure play " of sorts, as opposed to integrating Layer 3 elements with the majority of their DWDMs. LU has taken a slightly different approach, often introducing Layer 3 capabiities into new optical platforms with mixed resluts so far, at best. But they also supply those DWMD network elements which are purely optical, or those which do add-drop at the lambda level, without going into Layer 3 routing. When I think of CIEN expanding its purview (or JNPR, for that matter), I draw an analogy to LVLT or GBLX installing telephone booths in Kuala Lampur. This, too, would be a form of expansion and extension of their market reach, but is it in their best interests? Or would they only do this as a "must carry" offering for the privilege of playing in that market? Another aspect to consider is the evolution of optical router and switch functions as big boxes in the core and the evolving edge become more homogenized (single architecture, as opposed to vertical integration of many different) in their makeups, as opposed to being the structural kludges that many of them still are. At some point all processes (from Layer 1 to Layer 3) should be incorporated into fewer (or a much reduced number of) fabrics and modules, anyway. When those capabilities exist at both the hardware and software levels in an "any medium" element, then IMO it would be a no brainer. It would make sense at that time if the financials and shareholder interests justified it. Then again, by the time that these tighter design fabrics are achievable, each of these companies' product offerings may already be relegated to legacy status, themselves, depending on how they are able to extend their current platforms into next generation optical capabilities, or find the need to toss some aspects of them over the side. Just musing over several possibilities here. Comments and corrections are welcome. Regards, Frank