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: tech101 who wrote (17150)	10/9/2006 2:06:17 PM
From: Sailtrader	Respond to of 46821

Good points tech101, although it seems Akamai has not had a problem finding clients. Do you have some references that show specifics on the much discussed purchase of dark fiber? I am beginning to wonder if Google has really done what the rumors attribute to them.

To: tech101 who wrote (17150)	10/9/2006 2:09:55 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Tech101. I tend to dismiss the Akamai proposition on the grounds of Google's insistence maintaining its in-house secret sauce and because of the scale of their operation. I believe that Google has ten times as many servers "out there" than Akamai at this time. If they leased from the latter they'd effectively be building the company on its own trade, anyway. What are the annual handling charges (opex) for the networks that cost only $250Million, and how much debt would be transferred in the deal? Equally important, could the network in question be acquired free and clear of their traditional PSTN-type customer base? I've given some thought to, and even hypothesized, Google's acquiring a BWNG or XO, too, and I always wind up asking myself the same questions I just asked you. Google doesn't require a limited backbone presence along a couple of national railroads' main lines. If anything, a LVLT would be more suitable, IMO, even at a higher price. But, LVLT, too, would present issues that I don't think Google wants or needs. IMO, Google doesn't need to develop capabilities (or acquire them) to support citcuit-switched voice services for customers that are still ensconced in SONET frameworks. The company requires wavelength connectivity supporting 10 Gbps, and soon, 100 Gbps, Ethernet to local distribution networks (last mile providers) wide and far enough to be able to serve every corner of the globe. With the buying power that Google possesses, the $250M that it would spend on a carrier could as easily, in fact more easily, be used to acquire more dark fiber- and wavelength- IRUs along equivalent routes _and _ on regional networks not covered by the larger networks, as well, than it could fill with traffic, and I believe it would still end up spending less on other aspects of opex than it would by acquiring a carrier, while, at the same time, avoiding the extra administrative burdens associated with supporting legacy telecom customers. I find it ironic, in retrospect, that both BWNG and XO stocked up on the latter types of customers by acquiring smaller metro voice competitors only three or four years ago, with the hope of improving their revenue visibilities. FAC