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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : FNet=Internatl Voice/Fax/Data&Video Services ViaInternet -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: george willse who wrote (298)	6/6/1998 10:33:00 AM
From: Bruce Hoyt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 609

George, under your scenerio then I see FNet being rolled out hard and fast, with emphasis on the international deployment for significant initial revenue streams to keep up with high short term debt payments. Of course they would only need to borrow and make payments on the debt incrementally, as it would take at least a year to complete. With FNet expansion fully financed for the first 250 cities or so then the only purposes of an IPO become to 1.Pay off the expensive short term debt & 2.Provide some liquidity for the shareholders. Then there's the other possibility of being bought out instead of an IPO after establishing FNet as a legitimate competitor. I would not assume that we will reach that stage until early next year. Depending on the terms of a buyout (restricted stock possible), it looks like Maui is postponed until early 2000 (1 year hold after IPO). Just doing some Saturday morning speculation with your scenerio but its all based on those bankers finishing the credit checks and passing out the moulah. Hope Frank was never 60 days late on his Sears Card<GGG>. Or we could IPO now with a visionary investment banker with major cahones. Bruce de can still retire by 50 guy

To: george willse who wrote (298)	6/6/1998 4:47:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 609

George, I agree in large part with your reply to Bruce, but I have some questions and comments concerning items 4 and 5. >>4) 7 million will not come close to getting the job done<< What is the desired construction you are referring to resulting from such a buildout, and how much do you think it should cost? 7 MM is not far off for a virtualized infrastructure. The latter would yield lower, but faster returns that a physical one. Whereas a physical one could run into the tens of millions or more. What is the targeted infrastructure you are referring to here? The more money that is wisely spent investing in infrastructure, particularly fiber routes, the longer the period of payback, but the higher the eventual returns. This has been demonstrated time and again through modeling which demonstrates the relative long term impact of renting T1s / T3s versus owning the glass. Today, indefeasible right of use (IRU) of wavelengths made possible through DWDM by the larger carriers is now more feasible than owning a physical strand used to be not too long ago, and this makes the most sense on the higher-density routes, obviously. When amortized over ten or fifteen years, the cost of a T1 then becomes measured in tens of dollars per month, as opposed to thousands, over long distances. This is what is now permitting the 10 and 12 cpm calls to the UK from CONUS end users using _traditional_ high-quality channelized technologies. >>5) The major telecom alliances/mergers are a real threat now, whereas the majors at one time didn't have a clue as to the importance of the telecom/internet synergy<< I wouldn't go quite that far, although your point is well taken. The science and technology labs of every respectably sized LEC and IXC have been tuned in to VoIP and other voice over X [packet] variants for a long time. That's their business. Some will argue that based on their extensive study of the technology, that is precisely why they haven't elected to use it. Of course, there are other more influential factors which have blocked its use altogether, to date, but even those are starting to fall apart under (1) the pressure of competition and (2) the willingness of users to settle for less quality. I attribute the latter in large part to users becoming accustomed through conditioning, often having to endure long waiting times for downloads on the 'Net, and a generally degraded set of expectations from electronic media, including Windows desktop systems crashing, LAN download delays, etc., in general. My theory is that tolerance to degraded quality tends to increase proportionately to its exposure, in other words. My talks with some entrenched BOC and even some large CLEC engineers have consistently revealed that the fact is that they regard the technology as still too immature, because it cannot yet meet the service level quality expectations that still serve as branding staples for them. FWIW, and, Regards, Frank Coluccio