To: Teddy who wrote (438 ) 7/16/2000 2:57:16 PM From: Frank A. Coluccio Respond to of 46821 I appreciate the legwork, Teddy. When I asked the question, MetroCor hadn't even been released as a product yet. Which itself is interesting for it reveals the kind of dynamic that is at play here. Announce that you will put in a state of the art network and then put it in a year later with elements that didn't exist when you made the announcement. Incidentally, I believe that there is a third major dark fiber network underway in NY who, along with MFNX and Telergy now, are going to be putting in MetroCor, as well. By now, the assortment of fiber types used in some metro dark fiber networks is beginning to resemble the rings of a tree -- an issue that does not go unnoticed by enterprise, SP and other carrier engineers, when piecing together their optical metro networks. As long as interfaces are SONETized, no problem. But when you begin doing pure, free-form optical, service level metrics change from one category of fiber to the next. Indeed, some classes of older fiber don't even support some of the wavelength regions that some of the newer ones do. And when you combine the metro with regional strands, the potential for mis-match increases, further, requiring the use of wavelength converters and compensation techniques, in order to survive from one section to the next. All of which will require an operating approach to handle lambdas and the idiosyncratic characteristics of each type of fiber within contiguously attached segments (i.e., tandem segments), much the way dissimilar T1s and E1s, T3s and E3s have been "groomed" and reconciled, over time, using Digital Cross Connects (DCSs) in the electro-digital domain.