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 : Qwest Communications (Q) (formerly QWST) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Klein who wrote (494)	12/19/1997 12:39:00 PM
From: Andrew G.	Respond to of 6846

John: It's nice to know you are "extremely bullish" after hearing a series of bearish posts from you. I won't go head-to-head with you on your knowledge of the network business. However, I do wonder about your cock sureness about second guessing the Qwest management strategy. You don't like the press releases I sighted 'Wall ST. fodder", you say. Well fine. Frankly, I don't except them to spell out every detail of their plans and why they make sense, do you? I agree QWST will explode upward in value to assume a market cap in-line with and then beyond FON and MCIC, and the fiber is only part of that equation. I will not second-guess their strategy, but I will venture a guess that they must pick their partners very carefully. They are like the rookie superstar who must earn his way in the big leagues every step of the way. So far their strategies are working. If your long on QWST, lets keep the faith. BTW, thanks Jhild for the URL on the BusinessWeek article. John, I don't suppose you give any merit to Mr. Nacchio's thinking from that article either?

To: John Klein who wrote (494)	12/28/1997 8:50:00 AM
From: Shibumi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6846

>>The problem with native IP is that it does not allow for QOS. >> [...] >>This is why frame and ATM (more so frame now, since it works) >>is so cool. >> >>Unless I'm missing something here, this is a prett weak data >>strategy. >> [...] >> I do not see a data strategy here, Please correct me if I am wrong...but it appears to me from your post that you do see a data strategy here -- you just don't agree with it. The data strategy is IP. Now you note that Qwest doesn't have public plans on how to sell IP, and you note that IP doesn't provide QOS. However, it would seem to me that these are implementation issues associated with the strategy rather than a lack of data strategy itself. I'm not trying to split hairs but rather I'm trying to make sure I understand the point that you've raised here. If my take on your objections are correct, then we can move onto the two implementation issues you raise. With respect to Qwest not having a public plan for selling IP -- my take on this is that the belief at Qwest is that with Internet traffic growing at 300% to 400% a year (versus a 7% growth rate for voice traffic) that they have multiple options on this. Of course, they don't have to sell any of this directly -- they can become the "arms dealer" in a set of wars fought by various communication industry players. And as you note, getting peerage agreements isn't all that difficult for this type of player. With respect to QOS -- it appears to me that you are making a technology argument of the worthiness of IP for real-time traffic and associated real-time traffic control. There's no doubt that ATM and Frame have distinct advantages in providing QOS. However, the issue seems to me to be one of what the "killer app" is that's driving your data strategy. To date, it appears that IP has reached a critical mass. I'm sure that the last point is debatable to you -- and I'd love to hear you debate it. The purpose of this post was simply to try to understand your objections a bit more clearly. Thank you for the time you're spending on this issue. I believe we both agree on Qwest's ability to leverage their physical layer strategy.