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: MikeM54321 who wrote (8531)	9/18/2000 1:19:29 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Mike, I don't view our perspectives as necessarily polarized at opposite ends of the spectrum. Yes, equipment sales will continue to go up in units sold, as more individuals acquire additional means of communicating and amusing themselves. And SP margins are continuing to decline for commodity services. We've already seen the throw-away razors, cameras, and throw-away phones. What else does one do with a unit that has been obsolesced beyond hope? The challenge for the providers is (yes, this is a mantra, I know) to introduce value-adds that are truly worth the extra nickel they are seeking to add to the cost of each session or call, and staying ahead of the same services that would erstwhile be free by someone else who views it as a must carry, or as a free enticement to attract users to a larger set of offerings. In contrast, we can all recall when a cell phone sold for close to a thousand dollars. If we're in the chasm stage of Web-based phones, well see higher entry costs for early adopters here, too. But these new widgets will also decline to commodity status right along with everything else that follows the Moore curve, unless they are protected by some serious IP rights. And even then, there is no real guarantee. And many of the complicated DOCSIS CMTS and Central Office GR 303 platforms will yield to simplicity in the future, whether it be 10 or 100 GbE-based, or more streamlined forms of ATM/PONs. What is the salvation? It would be if the vendors who are being cannibalized are doing it to themselves, and not being supplanted by others. Let me mind blast for a moment about another aspect of consolidation, if I may. If we agree with the premise of the article that I posted in my last message here, then one of the problems with a shrinking number of players is that some of them will default or merge themselves into someone else's platforms. This tends to leave the bankrupted- or acquired- providers' vendors holding the bag, or minus a customer, respectively. Awareness of these dynamics causes vendors to be more careful, tightening credit criteria, or cutting back on investments that some of them sometimes make in carriers (by way of direct and equipment financing), carriers who would otherwise purchase their products. Neither case is good for vendor revs. You are right, of course. The top line revenues of providers are important. Margins and overall earnings, more so. Ask the folks over in T and WCOM who are looking at their LD results. When you consider the overall costs to sustain some platforms, sometimes the guys who are making the most money --certainly, the cleanest -- are the independent sales agents who receive residuals from the carriers on each wireless account, or dsl service, sold. FAC

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (8531)	9/18/2000 3:32:32 PM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 12823

From the ML release: "And fundamentally, we believe that this remains a growth industry, indeed one with an accelerating, not decelerating, top line." Thread- Well gee wiz...The $600 billion annual worldwide SP revenues keeps going on up and up. And we telecom infrastructure investors know what follows. -MikeM(From Florida)

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (8531)	9/18/2000 4:40:11 PM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 12823

Re: USA Total Service Provider Revenue Estimates "I track equipment spending fairly closely, I need to start attempting to track worldwide SP revenues. That is the very heart of everything we invest in. If that starts to decrease, then it would probably be time to start worrying." Thread- Speak of the devil, in today's WSJ there is a large section(really two sections) on Telecommunications. Although fairly basic, it's a good rollup on a lot of subjects we talk about here on the LMT thread. Anyway, the lead story has part of what I was looking for, SP revenues. It's kind of hard to figure out if the printed numbers(chart) overlap. IMO they must because they are simply too high to be stand alone figures-- Right? Local may include CM and DSL revenues? And maybe even wireless is a sub-group of local? I really don't know because I have not paid as much attention to these kinds of stats as I should be doing. I'll just list the INCREDIBLE figures as they are printed in the story. Remember these are just USA figures and I have not cross checked them against any other sources. If accurate then yeah right...the telecom equipment spending is coming to an end.<vbg>: Local 2000 $120 billion 2001 $125 billion 2002 $140 billion 2003 $155 billion 2004 $170 billion Long Distance 2000 $108 billion 2001 $110 billion 2002 $115 billion 2003 $121 billion 2004 $126 billion Residential High-Speed Access 2000 $2 billion 2001 $6 billion 2002 $10 billion 2003 $15 billion 2004 $20 billion Wireless 2000 $60 billion 2001 $75 billion 2002 $91 billion 2003 $115 billion 2004 $120 billion The figures are from: Gartner Group: Thomson Financial Securities Data. -MikeM(From Florida) WSJ- Wall Street Journal CM- cable modem DSL- twisted pair competitor of CM SP- service providers of all kinds LMT- last mile technologies