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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kent Rattey who wrote (14534)	6/15/1998 7:20:00 PM
From: StockMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Re -- CSCO was looking to partner rather than compete. Yet another FAILURE of that salesman Chambers. BAY's House one-upped him on that.!! Never mind Chambers can always try and try again with TLAB maybe... Stockman

To: Kent Rattey who wrote (14534)	6/15/1998 8:44:00 PM
From: Peppe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Gents, Other than Stocksp**m looking for a place in the universe, I can't see a better development for Cisco than the NT/Bay marriage. Some points to ponder: - How does a valley-based engineer with tons of stock options feel like working for an 80,000 person Canadian company with NO STOCK PLAN (only senior managers at NT have options) - How would a Bay sales rep feel about getting a 50 % cut in salary ? (or NT reps getting half the salary of their Bay counter-part?) - How about a merger with key people in 5 different cities (Toronto,San Jose, RTP, Dallas and Boston....Ouch !!!) CSCO will have a field day while the NT boys figure this mess out !! The market has voted, this deal sucks for NT ! Cheers, Peppe

To: Kent Rattey who wrote (14534)	6/15/1998 10:54:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 77400

Pardon me Kent, but let me do some thinking aloud here for a moment, if you please. I keep reading and hearing that TLAB may be a part of CSCO's solution. I can see this, if it is CSCO's desire to become a highway company, but TLABs does not possess the same type of enterprise customer base, nor does it possess the cross-section of application platforms and other gear that would be necessary to compete against LU and NT, IMO. TLAB has always been mainly a transmission and digital cross-connect system company, and now a fiber DWDM company, as well. They are extremely good at the hierarchical DS0 through SONET OC-n transmission and switching elements. And now wavelengths. Period. Unless you want to talk about CIEN's other (hidden) contribution to their game. And just what are they? The way I see things unfolding at this time, optical networking will supplant the devices that have been TLABs forte up until now. Not overnight, but in due time. Many think that TLAB's acquisition of CIEN was a growth play, but I'm beginning to believe that it was very much a defensive play, since ATM over native fiber/lambda and IP over native fiber/lambda, each without the need of (or a greatly reduced need of) traditional SONET transport elements and digital cross-connects in the future, will be facilitated by optical add-drop capabilities, which CIEN, Perelli and LU are well on their way to doing. TLAB had better hang on to a CIEN, if this is the case, wouldn't you say? CSCO itself is looking to do IP directly over Fiber and derived wavelengths. ASND just announced that they will obviate the need for digital cross connects and external switching elements with their "new public network" framework that makes use of optical networking and high speed ATM directly over fiber and derived wavelengths. And other less known companies are announcing GE over great distances using this technique as well (see MRVC posts). One of the enablers here is the recent emergence of fiber companies who are no longer afraid of rocking the established carriers' boats, since they are now sinking tons of new fiber into the ground and leasing/selling/IRUing dark fiber strands and wavelengths to smaller carriers, and END USERS, alike (QWST and MFNX come to mind first, but there are a growing list of others.) Returning to the main point, sure, having TLAB on the same side of CSCO would be helpful to their cause, but it still does not address the immediate requirements that center on legacy system replacements and upgrades, and the evolving premises and edge provisions for enterprises and telcos alike, that could stand up to either LU or NT. I think that CSCO may have to continue expanding its search to fill those items. Comments would be welcome. Best Regards, Frank Coluccio