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 : YURI ( YURI SYSTEM ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Phoenix who wrote (724)	3/4/1998 3:35:00 AM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1181

<..??? If you're using ATM why in the world would you want to use a circuit switched backbone? You wouldn't. ATM solutions will terminate on a parallel ATM network. Furthermore I don't believe ADSL precludes any layer 2 or layer 3 technology.... I SHOULD have said: "..if your enterprise plans continue to require the toll quality voice currently provided by the PSTN, it will probably be looking to an ITU-T compliant integrated ATM solution..." The current Cisco datacom solution seems to be that it hopes to get into the enterprise (and telco) WAN, with a multiple network (data overlay) approach, and using (NON-telco toll quality) voice compression with the Ardent MC3810 gateway and Stratacom circuit emulation, and a 2500 router with a MP860 and some TI general purpose DSPs. Now why WON'T a telco mass deploy this solution? 1) because overlay networks are expensive to develop, install and maintain, and 2) because problematic internetworking between all the networks has to be addressed and maintained. For these types of reasons, CCITT/ITU-T (which ALL public telcos will abide by) chose ATM as it's single universal broadband integrated services data network (BISDN) switching protocol. And public telcos worldwide will follow this spec. (Of course, CLECs will explore THEIR propietary solutions) But for a single universal BISDN, ATM offers the highest performance across the range of current (telemetry, low speed data, voice, high speed data/videophony, and high quality video) and future (HDTV, ????) services. [This of course is apparent in the ITU UDSL working group choice to integrate in ATM... though more a given than a choice...] An ATM (aka - fast packet switching; ATD) based switching network, is unlike circuit, MRCS, fast circuit or packet switching, which all suffer from varying degrees of service dependence, inefficiency in resource use and non-adaptability to bursty sources, and therefore the superior choice. But describing/discussing these in greater detail, or quoting telecom gurus like ALA's Martin De Prycker, won't make the difference. What WILL be the clincher is how likely telcos are to go with a non-standard (ie., multi service, data overlay, non ATM pure to the edge) network. As a result, I suspect that Lucent, Nortel or Ericcson are more likely to acquire YURI than Cisco. So which network approach will win in the telco and enterprise WAN? The telecom or datacom folks? We will see, but I think Cisco stands a much better chance with their approach of getting the MCNS business than getting the telco business So what are the arguments that YURI will fail? As far as YURI's target market, the telco and enterprise WANs (which want complete telco interoperability), I don't put a lot of conern in the competing technologies argument. Of course, I could be wrong. As far as ATM CPE competitors in the WAN and LAN market, I am not aware of a company with the quality of ATM edge products out there. Though I presume they may well emerge (and I would likely invest in them). In the meantime, YURI has established significant relationships with top tier telecom system integrators of YURI products, clearly a requirement for ANY RBOC contracts. And as far as the major reason for the unbelievable short psotion - Split Rock dependence - what do you think a major US telco contract to YURI (say through BAY and/or Lucent) in the next month or 3 would do to those 3+ shares that have bet that YURI has a limited market and future? Of course, maybe it DOESN'T happen, but I'm currently betting it does. And the short interest makes this bet all the sweeter, with limited near term (6 month) downside and an explosive upside. All IMO. Steve