SteveG,
In response to my question about whose SS7 LVLT has chosen to use, I was referring to the manufacture of the SS7 system platform and associated peripherals, and whose SS7 cloud service they were planning to use (Illuminet, CBIS, etc.), not the carrier who is attached to it (XCOM).
>> It seemed pretty clear to me that it is through XCOM that LVLT's IP switch with full SS7 capabilities will be brought online.<<
In any event, I think that this XCOM thing, and this is only my humble opinion, is being taken beyond its 'material' value. However, this is not to suggest that it lacks 'institutional' value.
What LVLT obtained in this acquisition was (1) some legacy switched service platforms (nothing out of the ordinary as far as I could see, except that it seemed to lack anything spectacular), (2) the subscriber base that XCOM has grown since its inception, (3) switched services expertise that they may have been lacking in, and (4), and probably most importantly, IMO, some needed press to feed to shareholders that demonstrated how they were going to meld their All-IP net (which now has ATM scattered about in its underpinnings) to the real and still-dominant world (despite inroads being made in VoIP and VPNs) of switched circuit transport and the PSTN/GSTN.
I might also add that I think that it was a wise move for them to make this acquisition, since they appeared to be going in to this venture in a lop-sided manner from the outset, more or less stranding themselves, from the rest of the world. They needed something on this order to project a sense of realism and relevance, i.e., in order to bring themselves into a more realistic perspective, going forward, IMHO.
I further went on to posit,
FAC: "..That is to say, they now become a bona fide voice carrier hooked into the PSTN.."
SG: >>Definitiely not. They are on their own toll quality IP networks all the way.<<
When you say 'all the way,' I would take that to mean that they will be providing an end to end service to the exclusion of facilities that tie into the world at large, including data bases that contain subscriber directory number information, the access to which is the essence of why SS7 would be needed and used in the first place.
What you are saying is altogether do-able, but highly impractical, since it suggests the creation of a proprietary network of an isolated nature, which immediately raises a flag. It brings back memories of WANG and Apple, to name a couple of companies who thought that they could go it alone.
However, while this characterization is in reply to what you've suggested, I don't feel, nor have I seen any real evidence, that this is what LVLT actually has in mind, lest they wish to isolate themselves from the rest of the telecomm/datacomm universe. This is, in some way, supported by your observation that:
>> hence their need for owning an IP switch with full SS7 capabilities<<
This seems to incongruent with the rest of your positions. If they are hermetically sealed off from the rest of the PSTN by virtue of their own end-to-end service provision, "all the way," then why do they need a full SS7 compliant switch, when LDAP or some other directory service lookup capability in conjunction with H.323 gate keeper functions would seem the more appropriate means of dissociation.
I still maintain that if they are making data calls (dips) into public directory data bases via SS7 links, this then qualifies them as a PSTN player, and removes them from the Information Services Provider category, which is to say that it takes them out of the access-charge-immune genre. They may want to take a legal position to the contrary, although I have no evidence of that at this time, but I suppose they will give that option serious thought, and may attempt to do so.
If they take a strong position in this matter, i.e., claim to be an Information Service Provider and not a PSTN carrier, then the FCC and possibly the courts will decide the matter. A lot depends on future FCC rulings and orders, however, and as far as I'm concerned, this entire matter has yet to be fully defined with any clarity at all.
>>Crowe emphasized complete end to end solution that will NOT require dialing any billing access codes.<<
What he's talking about here is pre-subscription PIC codes that are programmed into end office systems, so that the caller doesn't have to go through digital hell every time they want to call home to find out what time dinner is. Multiple PICs are now available in some LEC regions to allow for this without the need to subscribe to LVLT or any other VOIP service. These are normal SS7-related capabilities that have been in place for years, ever since 1+ dialing has been in place.
Crowe is emphasizing, and at the same time capitalizing, on the fact that most other IP based services simply haven't taken advantage yet of this plain and ordinary POTS feature yet, and that LVLT will. Please correct me here if I am mistaken.
I share your curiosity about the following as well:
>> What I need to fill in, is do they plan to lease local copper, or is fiber and fixed wireless in their diet. WCII seems a great fit for broadband local loop.<<
I think that WCII is a great fit for "any" aspiring carrier who must reach their end point targets economically, be it LVLT, FON's ION, T's, etc. The question for LVLT and Teligent's is does is make sense to sell out at this time, or leverage their natural advantage as a utility to all of the above? Working the other way, should WCII establish its own subscriber base, and leverage on a least cost basis the long distance part? They're in a good position I'd say to choose from a great menu of options at this time, but I think that they'll need to come to some decision soon, or be watching from the side lines at some point.
In closing, I am thinking of going long on LVLT, so please don't mis-read my critiques here. I only want to more fully understand the nature of their business model, and this is a good means of mining that research, with diligent investors and researchers such as yourself. FWIW,
Best Regards,
Frank Coluccio |
