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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (61587)	10/2/2002 6:17:28 PM
From: rkral	Respond to of 77400

Cisco: We're in RBOC 'Lovefests' The link is lightreading.com

To: puborectalis who wrote (61587)	10/3/2002 4:49:49 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Hi Fallope, we have a customer that was ready to require some huge CISCO gear through an RBOC, but the RBOC was (and still is) blocking any sale of Cisco gear. (We reworked the sale a different way that cuts the need for the RBOC out.) It appears this RBOC believes they will increase their $5B loss if they sell CISCO gear. Deploying Cisco gear accelerates the RBOCs IP traffic, thus, displaces traditional revenue streams and apparently increases their loss. Quite very contrary to what's reported in this report, the bottom-line is: their actions indicate they do not want to sell Cisco gear and they are quite very successfully blocking sales of Cisco gear, by way of declining price quotes to desirous customers. The monopoly powers of an RBOC certainly appears way more powerful than mighty Cisco. I get dinged twice: I own CSCO (whose profits are 15% dependent on such streams) and I own private stock which is dependent upon successful deployment of Cisco gear. An RBOC is suppose to provide a price quote to the customers. But it doesn't. (Yes, even when the so-called "Agent" form is filled out, they still indeed don't.) The good news though, aside from there being other obvious ways we sell our product, there's another carrier whose business model isn't negatively impacted by the deployment of Cisco gear, thus they are very, very motivated to sell & deploy Cisco gear. The carrier had our stuff and Cisco's stuff in their test lab (and their collateral, which I had to pull!), even faster than the RBOC's emails blocking price quotes to the customer. What would be helpful to Cisco (and thus CSCO), is to see Cisco really take a hard-core initiative to unblock the pull-through demand for their gear through any anti-IP RBOC, by creating the following email address: UnblockRbocs@cisco.com "Email the name of your account that wants Cisco gear and the name of the RBOC that is blocking the sale of Cisco gear and the contact person at the RBOC." When Cisco does sign a deal with the RBOC, Cisco really, really needs to make sure there is a "performance clause" in the contract, otherwise, Cisco could get really screwed. Executed contracts need to deliver to a level of performance and an enforcement of delivering needs to be specified by Cisco, otherwise the contract could just be lip service to CSCO. Cisco should require the RBOC to share all of the RBOCs'leads with Cisco so Cisco can monitor whether or not the RBOC is performing on the leads. Tough love is what's needed. Regards, Amy J

To: puborectalis who wrote (61587)	10/3/2002 5:56:19 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 77400

Hi Fallope, “I’ve read things lately that say Cisco is not committed to the service provider business,” The service provider model can't exist with an RBOC, unless the RBOC is motivated to carry IP traffic. Creating a contract that says an RBOC is using Cisco core and edge routers is not the same as making sure the RBOC performs to a contract, i.e. doesn't block Cisco sales by not providing pricing of IP to channels pulling demand for Cisco gear. Fortunately, my startup has never depended upon service providers in any real way for the pull-through of our product, though it does depend upon the deployment of Cisco gear, but in other ways. ( I had made a typo in my previous post...apparently the report said: Cisco's revenues are 10 to 15% dependent upon service provider streams.) Regards, Amy J