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: Crash who wrote (5252)	3/19/2002 4:30:44 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Crash, while your question about the number of fiber providers feeding a NAP has merit, I don't think that NAPs need necessarily be fiber-carrier intensive at the access and local transport levels, as much as they would be at the Tier1 and Tier2 Network Service Provider / Internet backbone level. IOW, many NSPs can utilize (and indeed for years did utilize) only a handful of local service providers. With the boom of the past couple of years (before the bust), there were a number of additional fiber companies added to the original ILECs/TCGs/MFSs/Brookses of the world, and some of them actually still exist ;) That was the jist of my earlier message: i.e., a number of the fiber carriers that are listed in the promo of my earlier message no longer exist, or, they are on their way out. And many (most?) of the others are still grappling with financial reporting issues, unmet revenue expecatations, and the ensuing operational issues that normally follow. Musing for a moment, the lines are certainly blurring between what can be considered a NAP, a private peering point, an Internet Exchange point, an IBX, a fiber meet me point, colocation points, access aggregation points, etc. See Layer One's Web site for an example of what one company is attempting (and apparently succeeding at) doing in the way of a local fiber pop. Their claims, it would seem, are that they are in the business of doing most, if not all, of the above. (Does anyone know how healthy LayerOne is these days?) layerone.com And in this piece, from the Cook Report on Internet: cookreport.com ---- To address your other question, I've not kept track of the NAP and IX (Internet eXchange) wars in Florida, personally, but you might be able to pick something up from the following ongoing discussion on the North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) mailing list. At about the same time that you posted your question here someone else ( it wasn't you, now, was it? ;) posted: "I am a business school student studying the state of the telecom sector and specifically the Internet infrastructure. I am currently trying to understand the role the IX such as PAIX, Equinix, Telehouse, etc.. will play in the future where the number of service providers is drastically reduced relative to the environment they were created in. I think PAIX is a good example of this. MFN announced today that they were selling off PAIX. I would be interested in hearing thoughts on why anyone would want to buy PAIX and if there is a way to continue to make money selling cross connects in the future." You can follow the ongoing discussion at the NANOG archive site: cctec.com Note, there appears to be a one-day lag in updating this site. I notice there are quite a few messages that have appeared on the actual mailing list that have not yet been posted to the archive. FAC