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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (21284)	3/24/2000 6:46:00 PM
From: chaz	Respond to of 54805

Why do I think I already know what the primary topic of this weekend will be? Because you're having a Merlin moment?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (21284)	3/25/2000 12:53:00 AM
From: RRRoarr	Respond to of 54805

OC-x = Optical Carrier level OC-1 = 51.84 Mbps (mega/million bits per second) OC-192 = 10 Gbps (giga/billion bits per second) whatis.com Optical networking, Cisco, Nortel, OC-48, OC-192 eetimes.com All-Optical networking? eetimes.com Tunable laser, OC-192 eetimes.com Optical reduces network costs, OC-48 eetimes.com Intel & OC-192, OC-768 soon eetimes.com Q-911

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (21284)	3/25/2000 2:18:00 AM
From: mtnlady	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

"Is Nortel a Gorilla or leading Gorilla candidate in any field or is Nortel limited to royalty plays?" From 30,000 feet up it looks like a royalty play so far. No doubt fiber optic's is a discontinuous innovation with a huge value chain already formed. But if NT holds a proprietary open architecture yet I honestly don't know. Very technical area, huge barriers to entry I know exist (like JDSU's market). Customers tend to be very loyal to the vendor they are working with as these huge projects entail much more than simply purchasing a piece of equipment. They include scoping, designing, planning, purchasing the necessary equipment, customizing/tuning to the customers individual needs, installing, testing (huge uptime required) and maintaining these extremely complex networks. In addition the vendor needs to have expertise in older equipment and melding the new equipment in with it. I may be wrong but I don't see any proprietary open architecture that one company owns . OC-192 is a standard that everyone is adopting (until something new comes out) but if that standard Nortel developed and licensed I don't know but I doubt it. Nortel WOULD hold patents etc.. on the equipment they have designed and built for this space.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (21284)	3/25/2000 6:42:00 AM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike: This reminds me of the old days on the Fools Networking Board when CTRAUT was "Merlin". You, CTRAUT and I used to discuss the broadening of the "networking" area to cover rapid data transmission beyond the LAN and WAN space out into public telecom - using public (meaning open) transmission. Since that time much has happened. In those days the "public" telecoms were the only game for open long distance. Now there are a whole group of "new" (relatively) players such as QWEST, LVLT, Williams, Global Crossing et al - all fiberoptic. And fiberoptics is moving strongly into Metro. And here is a link to the potential use of fiberoptics in ethernet: zdnet.com The fiberoptics area is huge and expanding. Copper is static and will be overtaken in large part. Wireless of course will be a major force in the so called "last mile" - not only HDR from the Q but satellite too. And on and on. Networking is an extremely narrow nitch in comparison. That is where Cisco is a full card carrying gorilla. In fiber, I have yet to find a gorilla. Perhaps this fiberoptics discussion will uncover a gorilla candidate at least. I would be delighted. Best, and respect. Your sometimes agent. Cha2 a.k.a. Chaz elsewhere PS And I would suggest that sometimes an intelligent and perceptive carpetologist with an analytical bent has some advantages that a technical "expert" may miss. Was it Churchill when he was accused of being just a "generalist" who said something like that some things are too important to be left to the "specialists"?