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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (10659)	3/7/2001 11:37:43 AM
From: AlexGK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Thanks for the response Frank. I am not sure about WAP ASPs being similar to MVNOs, especially since MVNOs do usually have some facilities (e.g., MSC, HLR, and probably a network code for SIM card issuance in GSM networks, etc.). I just don't know much about this space to intelligently make further comments. To your point "that both LU and NT have adapted their Class 5 (end office switch) line cards to support both DSL and VoIP. Why have the ILECs elected NOT to acquire these features as upgrades yet, and not to turn them on where they are native in new switches? " As a colleague pointed out to me, the reason could be that it would further beholden the ILECS to the legacy switch manufactures (LU, NT, Siemens, etc.) who I believe have wrapped their VoIP implementations around their proprietary hardware facilities, but do not support completely open architectures. Of course, this flies in the face of the open standards push. However, it is in the legacy switch manufactures' best interests to keep their current customers (ILECs et al) locked into their hardware and closed systems. It could be that the ILECS, at least for now, seem to be wise about not jumping the gun in implementing new network elements which are based on proprietary technologies. I believe that ILECs are also evaluating emerging softswitch developers (SONUS, Xybridge, etc) for Class 5 replacement, but in true ILEC form, these things take time. Of course, ILECS can also use regulatory pressure and other tactics (ala Verizon-Northpoint) to stall the "greenfields," DLECS, MSOs, IXCs, etc. from entering the market and providing real competition... To your question about "greenfields" deploying converged services - I do see the last mile as a problem for "greenfields", but I do think companies like Winstar, XOXO, and others have the possibility of surviving and thriving. In Europe, I believe companies like MVNOs could possibly do very well especially when technologies like 3G and bluetooth take off. I just read an article which stated that PC growth has slowed significantly in Europe because PDAs, mobile phones, and other handheld devices are selling well. If I could get all the information I needed from a 3G phone that is bluetooth enabled, I would probably prefer this type of Internet access. With an MVNO business model, a "greenfield" could provide converged services without all of the costs of a last mile infrastructure. Of course, this all comes back to regulation, doesn't it? :-) Comments... ..