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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3234)	7/11/2001 11:02:38 AM
From: TheStockFairy	Respond to of 46821

To kinda restate my focus, I am really only concerned about point to point traffic, not minutes or IP, which usually can be settled at a switch rather than be delivered with a metro loop. This is the definition of a pooling point I am working with: A Pooling Point must have: A) Carrier Neutral B) QOS monitering equipment C) A place where connections between buyer and seller are reserved A lot of places such as carrier hotels, meet-me rooms and carrier pops are automatically excluded from this model, in my eyes, because they don't meet the above qualifications. 1) A good number of the newer GbE horrizontal players don't even have their own fiber, to begin with. They would almost depend on such a model [maintaining a presence in a pooling or peering point] just to maintain their operation. Peering point yes, for ISP bandwidth, pooling point would be nice possibly. The carrier side of the market is viewing several points as pooling points: 1) Their pops, they spent millions building pops and they are leary of spending additional capital to build out to new locations that aren't a proven revenue stream. 2) Carrier Hotels: These are natural pooling points, some even have meet-me rooms to make the x-connect process easier 3) Pooling points, which, to my knowledge, haven't really taken root as of yet. 2) Layer One The Layer One model makes sense, but I don't know how many buildings they have active currently. Also, there has to be a buyer and seller in the Layer One model. Since the buyer is the one who pays the x-connect fees, I see more people wanting to be the seller rather than the buyer. Also, unless I'm wrong, Layer One is more of a meet-me solution than a true pooling point. 3) Oddly enough, we've had BOD capabilities for a long time through the use of ISDN at lower speeds Yes, but you have to buy and pay for an ISDN line to have your BOD. :) There are costs associated with delivering a hardwired circuit, building cards, switch cards, fiber or copper, ect. Is it really BOD if the circuit is already there and you are paying for it? As for back up lines, UUNet will sell you a shadow T-1, which is a back up to their standard t-1, but you have to pay for the local loop and I think there is an admin charge for the service. Is that really BOD? Tape back up: I've been hearing this for years, that and midnight batch file dumps. With frame relay or ATM, you could, with manual intervention, scale a port from a 128k level to a t-1 level within a short period of time. Realistically you could also scale a ds-1 to a ds-3 in short order, i'm sure the provisioning and the port upgrade could be automated. Still, you are paying for the local loop and a port. Would that still be considered BOD? Someone has to pay to keep that loop up. 4) I take it you're referring to the 95 percentile techniques that are used at some peering points? No, you can still buy metered service for internet connections at the corporate level, anywhere from the 128k - ds-1, ds-3 and oc-3 through oc-48 level. It works on the same principal as the peering point concept of billing on the 95% utilization. If you really want to bring this down to another level, you have a bit of rate adaptiveness in frame also with CIR levels. But if we are talking about standard point to point lines, there is no way to charge for usage vs. full port. 5) larger carriers have been swapping and trading bandwidth for eons through mostly manual and digital cross connect means Yep. Through their sales channels, generally through the Wholesale Sales channel. 6) What the larger carriers very pointedly don't want is one of their primary assets, bandwidth, becoming commodified. Nope, then you can't charge high prices and they will get margin pressure. Most carriers really don't know how much it costs to deliver service, but they know when they are losing money overall. 7) In contrast, some of the newer age carriers' models were built in such a way as to eventually depend on it. Yep, key word is eventually.