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: MangoBoy who wrote (1284)	5/19/1998 12:46:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6846

Mark, Good question: >>Frank, should MFNX really be considered a CLEC? they seem to be more of a dark fiber wholesaler...<< I keyed on the Qwest association when I first read the post, and not the CLEC aspect. So you are correct, in accordance with established norms. Is this only a matter of semantics? Probably. Here's why: MFNX does have within its arsenal of services the ability to deliver large enterprises and municipalities managed bandwidth services, i.e., through the provisioning of SONET gear, but not in the classical marketing sense. And true, their goals at present are more focused on delivering dark fiber. They have some very good people on board who know where their competencies lie, and they are exploiting those skills on several different levels, nicely. I got the sense at a recent meeting, "whatever makes sense" is the determinant to how far they will go in doing end-to-end provisioning. Nevertheless, their preferences are clearly in the areas of 'blowing glass' at this time. When you come right down to it, though, at what denominations of transmission capacity do providers start and stop meeting the criteria of being a CLEC? DS0? T3? OC192? When do they stop? Does it matter whether capacity is parceled in the electronic or optical domain? This question warrants some attention purely on the basis of its illuminative value, IMO, even if only on an academic level at this time. Consider that MFNX has the capability to do wavelength-allocation and grooming, much like T3s and OC12s are allocated today, only without the traditional DSn/OCn hardware stages and breakdowns. This is more than just a little like what some SONET based CLECs do, only on a larger and more abundant level. The distinctions lie in channels separated by 100 GHz of silica, rather than by software-defined channel partitions and adjacencies in silicon. I would consider this akin to the delivery of services, at some point, especially if they provide dynamic qualities allowing bandwidth management and grooming, and even if they don't. Assuming the foregoing to be plausible, if not in fact being done right now, the questions then become: (1) is a wavelegnth-groomed-from-the-carrier-hotel strand delivered to your business doorstep dark or lit? (2) would this classify MFNX as a CLEC at that point? and, (3) how do you like the way I weasled my way out of this one? Best Regards, Frank Coluccio