SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Ascend Communications (ASND) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: djane who wrote (52148)8/14/1998 6:11:00 PM
From: djane  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 61433
 
The Oncoming Glut of Bandwidth

bcr.com

Volume 28, Number 8
August 1998, pp. 12-14

By John Puttr‚, (jputtre@aol.com), principal of Puttr‚, Inc., specializing in
strategic marketing, consulting and intelligence gathering for telephony,
computing, video and Internet companies.

The following is the full text of the printed article:

Only a short time ago, Dense Wave Division Multiplexing (DWDM) entered
the general investor's awareness when Ciena brought its IPO to market,
promising a product that would quadruple the bandwidth capacity of a single
fiber. On the day of its IPO, Ciena had less than $55 million in anticipated
revenues. When that first day of trading ended, Ciena had a market cap of $3.4
billion--60 times its entire revenue. It was the greatest one day's IPO in the
history of new technology, if not in the history of the stock market.

But that was just the beginning for DWDM. Most recently, Lucent
announced it could increase the capacity of a single fiber by 200 times. In the
interim, Ciena's market cap went to $7.1 billion as it combined with Tellabs. By
embracing this technology, carriers such as Qwest, Level 3, IXC and Williams
Communications are promising to change the economics of the telecom and
computer industry forever.


Bandwidth Availability
There are 49 million miles of fiber in North America, and until 1994, no one
seriously believed there was much need for more. It was assumed the fiber in
the ground could be modestly upgraded to handle any conceivable future
needs. Salomon Smith Barney's analysis of national bandwidth availability at
the time of AT&T's 1984 divestiture showed the monster telopoly had
balanced its available bandwidth capacity at 60 to 70 percent of all existing
bandwidth demand.

To build more might create a "glut" of bandwidth. What was the point of
investing money to build more capacity, which might only lower the resale
value of existing bandwidth? Demand was controlled by pricing set
unilaterally by the telopoly. If telecom users wanted more, then telopolies
could charge a premium, on the basis of scarcity.

After AT&T's breakup and the market's legitimization of MCI, Sprint, Wiltel
and others, the new carriers raced to build capacity to carry the traffic they
were capturing from AT&T. Though they built fiber backbones, their
technology was based on the same 64-kbps circuit-switched voice systems
AT&T had used for much of the century.


This was the original heyday of laying fiber without any regard to bandwidth
gluts. Protected by the AT&T pricing umbrella, the new telopolies had to
discount their rates only a few percentage points to get a lot of business. All
the new competitors' salespeople had to do was look up AT&T's tariffed rate
for any prospective customer and start cutting that rate at the start of their
sales call. It was like shooting fish in a barrel, and it was all so profitable that
new telopolies could be financed by the public and built overnight.

By the end of the new fiber-laying era, the combined bandwidth utilization of
all the telopolies fell to below 30 percent, despite an enormous increase in
usage, according to Salomon Smith Barney. Customer acquisition became
even more crucial, because carriers had to fill up these huge pipes, so the
telopolies turned to long distance resellers to get, steal or "slam" customers.

Hundreds of resellers sprang up overnight with little more than a
telemarketing office calling individuals and companies to sell heavily
discounted long distance services under new brand names, even though they
were only reselling the regular services of the telopolies. The real role of the
reseller was to find a buyer.

As a result, wholesale prices for bandwidth capacity as measured by cost per
DS0 for an equivalent mile per month on a one-year contract plunged from 22
cents a minute in 1988 to 4 cents a minute by 1995--a drop of 80 percent in
only six years, caused by the new competition and an increase in unused new
bandwidth of little more than 100 percent.

Yet by the middle '90s, the glut disappeared: The low cost of bandwidth and
the needs of the Internet once again created ever-greater demand for
bandwidth. So telopolies were able to raise bandwidth rates to business
customers; T1 prices increased 13 percent in 1997.

Now, because of DWDM and the intervention of the new carriers, bandwidth
is about to be added on an unprecedented scale. Nothing in
telecommunications, video and computers will ever be the same.

DWDM Problems for Older Telopolies
For older telopolies, the biggest economic problems are in legacy fiber
systems. Although more than 80 percent of the older telopolies' networks are
fiber, this plant varies in quality. Some may support only 1-Gbps speeds and
will not work with DWDM multipliers above four. Some fiber may not be able
to work economically at all with DWDM. What's more, there's a
lowest-common-denominator effect: contiguous fiber runs may vary in
quality, so when 10-Gbps fiber is connected to slower fiber, all speeds along
the network are reduced to the speed of the slowest fiber in the circuit.

Furthermore, to convert the older fiber systems to DWDM, the older
telopolies must use new electronic control techniques to manage the fiber.
Remember that wherever data enters or leaves the network, it's necessary to
convert the light beams into electrical signals. Therefore, upgrading to
DWDM requires physically getting to the old installed fiber to change the
electronics. Since the idea of DWDM did not exist when most of the legacy
fiber was laid, telopolies didn't anticipate the need to re-equip the fiber's
control systems, so they buried much of it without access points their
technicians could easily reach to upgrade old electronics.

Finally even if the older telopolies upgrade their fiber, they still may not be
economically competitive, because newer systems with purer fiber could have
many times their throughput. As such, the cost effectiveness of new
bandwidth vendors might be so great they could easily undercut the older
telopoly fiber networks--even after the latter have upgraded. In short,
upgrading their old fiber might just add to the "glut" and drive bandwidth
pricing even lower.

Qwest, IXC, Level3, Williams et al.
Telecom executives and financial backers outside the giant telopolies all
perceived the same symptoms and market needs. They saw a rapid tightening
of wholesale bandwidth markets and a constant call from the computer,
communications and video industries for more bandwidth at lower costs for
new applications. These telecom people understood the new economics of
DWDM bandwidth provisioning, along with the natural reluctance of old
telopolies to do away with their scarcity-based bandwidth thinking and
high-revenue business structures.

Initially, these new providers thought of themselves as super-bandwidth IP
carriers selling to the telopolies, who would lease the new bandwidth from
them when the old fiber backbones ran out of steam trying to handle the
traffic load of data growing at 1,000 percent a year (compared with voice traffic
growth of only 8 percent per year). But it quickly became obvious that the
newcomers' opportunities were really unlimited.

The projections were staggering. For example, Insight Research
(www.insight-corp.com) predicted worldwide bandwidth needs for data would
jump from 273 Gbps in 1997 to 27,645 Gbps by 2002--an increase of 101 times
in five years. Robertson Stephens projected this year that 25,000 T3s would
be needed by American industry in four years, compared with only 2,200 T3s
today. Meanwhile, cable networks came to the new providers, saying they
needed vast quantities of bandwidth for the services they hoped to deliver via
cable modems.

At the same time, more than 500 competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs)
had been licensed to compete with local access telopolies. Fifty CLECs have
raised almost $10 billion to build local access networks, according to
Robertson Stephens. Every one of these new CLECs needed to lease
wideband backbones to worldwide networks and to their customers. It's
unlikely any of them would consider renting their backbone from the very
local access or long distance telopoly they would be competing with.

Furthermore, there are 4,400 U.S.-based ISPs that are immediate prospects for
new wideband suppliers, because none of them can afford to be dependent on
a handful of telopolies that are or soon will be their competitors. These ISPs
all needed cheap wideband capacity to offer new value-added services.


The opening up of these new markets for bandwidth convinced the new
providers that they didn't have to limit themselves to being wholesale
suppliers of raw bandwidth to the old telopolies. Instead, they could compete
directly in selling services, or by selling bandwidth to others who were
undertaking to compete directly against the entrenched carriers.

New Economics and Implications of DWDM
DWDM theorists now believe a single fiber could transport 25 terabits per
second. Today, less than a single terabit would be enough to carry all of
North America's bandwidth needs. Using Qwest's new network as an example
of what's already being built, the economics and implications of DWDM
networks can be easily understood.

Qwest's network consists of two polyethylene conduits buried with carefully
placed access sites so technicians can easily upgrade the electronics
controlling the fiber. There is ample room alongside these conduits to lay
more conduits when needed.

Because the rights of way run along railroad routes, all construction is done
from specially designed railway cars using a "rail plow" to prepare the furrow
and then lower the fiber into its trench. Each conduit carries two cables with
96 strands each of OC-192-class fiber rated at 10 Gbps per strand when
running with only a single color (wavelength) or, as it is commonly called,
"one window."

When first designed, it was anticipated eight windows would run on each
strand, but the state of the art today is already 16 windows, so it should be
assumed Qwest could move up to 16 or perhaps even 40 windows eventually,
if market demand exists. To control initial costs and get immediate revenue,
Qwest has retained only 48 of the OC-192 fiber strands for itself and has
leased the other 48 strands to Frontier and GTE.

To get an idea of the bandwidth throughput of this single cable, multiply 96
strands times 10 Gbps per strand, times eight or 16 windows running. Then
consider that there is a second "dark" cable in the same conduit with the same
bandwidth capacity, and still another empty conduit space alongside that can
hold two more of these cables.

In fall 1997, Salomon, Smith Barney compared the Qwest setup--at a time when
it would reach just 17,000 route miles of fiber--to AT&Ts then-existing
network, in which the fastest fiber was only OC-48 (2.4 Gbps). AT&T has
41,000 route miles of fiber, of which it was estimated only 15 percent was of
the highest quality, and there are on average only 30 OC-48 fiber strands in
the higher-quality cables. Solomon Smith Barney therefore calculated that
even though AT&T would have 2.4 times more route miles of fiber networks,
"Qwest, if fully lit, in theory would have 20 times the throughput capacity of
AT&T."

But Qwest is not alone in feverishly laying fiber and raising billions of dollars
in public financial markets so they can keep on laying DWDM-based fiber.
Level3 recently raised $2.5 billion to add to its $3 billion "kitty" to keep laying
fiber, while Williams and IXC are also building similar networks. The Wall
Street Journal reported that these four new bandwidth vendors will have
63,000 route miles of DWDM cable laid by 2000. North River Ventures, a telco
industry venture-capital and consulting firm, has calculated that when all four
networks are complete, they will have 80 times the existing throughput
capacity of AT&T, when running only a minimal number of DWDM windows.

Meanwhile, AT&T is releasing press statements assuring that DWDM
technology will "make it possible for us to increase the transport capacity of
our existing network by a factor of 10, without having to lay any additional
fiber-optic cable." Sprint has promised that, "Through deployment of Dense
Wave Division Multiplexing and other fiber-optic technologies, Sprint [will]
efficiently and quickly scale network capacity.... In 1998, a single Sprint fiber
pair will be able to simultaneously carry over 2 million calls--the equivalent of
the combined peak time voice traffic of Sprint, AT&T and MCI.... In 2000, one
pair of Sprint fiber will have the capacity to handle 34 million calls
simultaneously." This indicates Sprint intends to upgrade its already fiber
backbone strands by a DWDM multiplier of 17 times.

Conclusion
The same dynamics that drove long distance prices down after the bandwidth
explosion of the previous decade are at work again--writ even larger. The
market forces that worked on voice in the 1980s will be brought to bear on
data and multimedia in the first decade of the 21st century. Retail bandwidth
pricing will have no place to go but down.

c1995-1998 BCR Enterprises, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This page was last modified on 08/10/98 Please direct comments, suggestions and problems to webmaster@bcr.com.




To: djane who wrote (52148)8/14/1998 6:14:00 PM
From: djane  Respond to of 61433
 
EDITORIAL. Leadership through "Fast Following" [Info on SBC spending]

bcr.com

Volume 28, Number 8
August 1998, p. 4

By Eric Krapf (ekrapf@bcr.com), managing editor of Business
Communications Review.

The followng is the full text of the printed article:

Even for an RBOC, $600 million isn't chump change, so SBC turned a few
heads with its recent announcement that it would spend that sum over the
next three years to upgrade its network to better handle high-speed data.
The
announcement garnered a few headlines, even though it happened the day
AT&T confirmed it was buying TCI.

But to me, the SBC executives' most telling comments weren't about what they
plan to do, but rather about the pace at which they expect the network and its
customer base to evolve. Mike Turner, executive VP of corporate planning
and capital management, conceded that in places like California, the volume of
data traffic nearly equals that of voice.
But, Turner added, "There's another
number to keep in mind, and that is the revenue generated by circuit-switched
versus IP: That number is 98 to 2 percent in favor of circuit-switched. There's
a lot of things that have to happen for that to change dramatically."

This is a point that BCR columnist Tom Nolle has made: Don't just look at
traffic, look at revenue. Telco people habitually see the issue this way, as was
clear during SBC's press conference when a journalist asked Mike Turner
when the imbalance in voice/data revenues might even out. Turner was clearly
taken aback: "Oh, God, I don't know," he said. "I'd say approaching 10 years."

Turner went on to predict that public carrier networks like SBC's will be the
last to evolve from circuit- to packet-switched voice; in the migration he
foresees, large businesses will lead the way, followed by long distance
networks and finally local providers. And yet Turner asserted that the SBC
network could be packet-based within five years, reflecting the RBOC's nature
as a "fast follower."

There's a disconnect in those statements. The network will be mostly
packet-based within five years, but revenues from packet-based services
won't equal circuit-based services for 10 years? Is SBC losing its much-touted
focus on the bottom line?

Certainly not. SBC, like other public network carriers, is speaking to several
audiences, each of whom wants to hear something different. The advantage
with SBC is that it has never pretended that any constituency was more
important than its shareholders. There's no reason that think that's changed.

So if you want to hear that we'll soon be living in an IP world, SBC will be
happy to tell you that. They'll even make some investments so as to be ready
when the day of IP's supremacy finally does arrive. Then they'll go back to
living in the real world, where circuit switching pays the bills. [Dinosaurs...]

c1995-1998 BCR Enterprises, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This page was last modified on 08/10/98 Please direct comments, suggestions and problems to webmaster@bcr.com.




To: djane who wrote (52148)8/14/1998 6:16:00 PM
From: djane  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 61433
 
Small Backbones Are Belles Of The Data Ball

Monday August 10 11:42 PM ET

By Randy Barrett, ZDNet

The market is hot for small Internet backbone companies.

With national networks and paying customers, companies are getting snapped up fast by larger
communications players eager to expand their long-haul data capacity.

Level 3 Communications Inc., for instance, likely will buy GeoNet Communications Inc., based
in Redwood City, Calif.; a final deal is expected within the week, sources familiar with the
negotiations said. GeoNet has 400 dedicated business customers and 30 employees.

Level 3 Chief Executive James Crowe said only: "Our policy is neither to confirm nor to deny
such rumors."

The acquisition would make sense for the new and well-heeled communications company
because it has no network of its own. Level 3 will spend $10 billion to construct its own fiber
network on railroad rights of way; it is leasing capacity from Frontier Corp. as a stopgap but isn't
offering any services, company officials said.

CRL Network Services also is close to a sale, possibly to competitive local exchange carrier
(CLEC) GST Telecommunications Inc., sources close to the company said.

To date, six smaller Internet backbone companies have been purchased by CLECs or larger
communications companies, including GlobalCenter by Frontier, GoodNet by WinStar
Communications Inc. and TCG Cerfnet by AT&T Corp.
Industry sources said most of the
cherries have been picked, and only a few choice companies remain - with DataXChange
Network Inc., Epoch Internet and Exodus Communications Inc. among them.

The urge to merge is based on cold, hard cash - smaller players must pay more for the leased
lines they use to run their networks and therefore are at a competitive disadvantage. CLECs and
long-haul carriers own fiber in the ground and have big bucks to grow large Internet access
businesses.

"In a facilities-based business, scale is everything," said Hilary Mine, Internet analyst at Probe
Research Inc.

Level 3 can be reached at www.l3.com

GeoNet can be reached at www.geo.net
Copyright c 1998 ZDNet. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without
express written permission of ZDNet is prohibited. ZDNet and the ZDNet logo are trademarks of Ziff-Davis
Publishing Company.



To: djane who wrote (52148)8/14/1998 6:19:00 PM
From: djane  Respond to of 61433
 
PSINet Targets Developing Swiss Market

internetnews.com


[August 10, 1998] In what marks the latest in a series of
international initiatives, PSINet Inc. announced today it will
provide businesses in Switzerland with local dial Internet access
through its Swiss subsidiary.

The Herndon, VA-based global Internet Service Provider cited
Switzerland's rank as the world's fourteenth-largest
telecommunications market with revenues amounting to U.S.
$8.5 billion as a key factor in the decision to provide Net access
in the developing market.

PSINet said pricing for business Internet connectivity will be
equivalent to that of a local call, and it will provide local area
network (LAN) interconnection services via a choice of
country-wide digital ISDN 2B (128 kilobits per second)
connections or 56k analog modems.

"Approximately 90% of our business customers require some
type of remote access. With Switzerland's tariff structure, it is
very easy for locations to fall outside of typical local calling
zones," said Mickey Coggins, director of network operations for
PSINet Europe. "PSINet's nationwide dialup service allows for
economical, reliable, secure and easy access to the Internet
regardless of location."

PSINet Europe first offered international services through its UK
subsidiary, PSINet Ltd., in 1996, with business dial access via a
local call in England, Wales, Scotland, the Jersey Channel
Islands (UK), and Northern Ireland. Earlier this year PSINet
Germany also rolled out Internet provider services.

The company said it now provides commercial Internet dial
services at local calling rates in major metro hubs covering 80%
of business markets in the United States, Canada, Japan,
Belgium, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and France.


Related Links:

PSINet Acquires Another Canadian ISP

PSINet Reports Record Revenues

PSINet Spends $46M on ISPs

PSINet Acquires Channel Islands ISP

Last modified: Monday, 10-Aug-1998 10:52:09 EDT

More News




To: djane who wrote (52148)8/14/1998 6:27:00 PM
From: djane  Respond to of 61433
 
Must-read. Mergers seen as natural in a maturing fiber industry

broadband-guide.com

Features, August 1998

By Robert V. Pease, Associate Editor

With the constant introduction of new fiber-optic technologies and
applications, companies frequently find themselves scrambling for
a piece of a new market segment. Thus, mergers and acquisitions
have been a regular part of the fiber-optics industry for years.

However, several recent mergers and acquisitions may warrant a
closer look. First was the more than $7-billion combination of
Tellabs (Lisle, IL) and CIENA Corp. (Linthicum, MD). Tellabs, a
major player in the voice and data transport and access systems
market, will now incorporate CIENA's expertise in dense
wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM) and switching
technologies. The combination is expected to catapult Tellabs as a
major provider in the advanced, high-speed network arena.
According to CIENA's president and chief executive, Patrick
Nettles, the merger is "about joining forces in order to do things
that simply weren't possible for either of us" and provide an
"opportunity to play a much bigger role" in the marketplace in the
next several years.

On the heels of the Tellabs/CIENA announcement, Alcatel
(Richardson, TX) unveiled an agreement to purchase DSC
Communications Corp. (Plano, TX) in a deal worth more than $4
billion. A European-based telecommunications-equipment
manufacturer with operations in more than 100 countries, Alcatel
will strengthen its U.S. presence significantly with its acquisition of
DSC, which is a provider of switching, transmission, access, and
network-management systems.

Finally, Nortel (Brampton, ON, Canada), a major digital
networking solutions provider, put the rumors to rest with a
$9.1-billion purchase of the data-networking firm Bay Networks
(Santa Clara, CA). The merger enables Nortel to expand its
Internet protocol network expertise and leverage Bay Networks'
established distribution channels.

These consolidations appear to have several factors in common.
First, these transactions represent billion-dollar deals, so sheer size
is an important issue to consider. Also, manufacturers appear to
be making a concerted effort to expand their product offerings.
The Nortel deal illustrates how a traditional
telecommunications-equipment vendor could use the acquisition of
a data-communications hardware provider to gain expertise in a
whole new area. Are the actions of these six companies
representative of things to come? Are the advantages of size,
efficiency, broader focus, competitiveness, and interoperability
leading to a rash of mergers and acquisitions within the fiber-optics
community?
These and other questions are on the minds of
customers, investors, employees, and anyone with ties to the
industry - and analysts are working overtime to provide some
answers.

Good time to merge

According to Fred McClimans, chief executive and director of
analytical operations for Current Analysis Inc. (Sterling, VA), the
recent merger trend has everything to do with industry maturity.
He says the growth of the industry over the past few years,
coupled with increased user demand, increased technological
development, and a requirement for venders to have access to
new markets and technology, has created a very favorable
environment for successful mergers to take place.

"For existing companies to continue to grow and survive," says
McClimans, "they must acquire new technologies, new companies,
and new markets. This growth is no longer affordable or
achievable internally."
[Do you think LU is listening?]

Robert Rosenberg, president of Insight Research Corp.
(Parsippany, NJ), says that the trend toward market consolidation
appears throughout the entire economy.

"The mergers in the fiber market are not taking place in a black
box," says Rosenberg. "The recent high evaluations of stock price,
regardless of what industry you're looking at, make it a favorable
time to engage in these types of activities."
However, the
telecommunications industry has a few unique aspects, he says.
First are the economies of scale. It takes billions of dollars of
investment to provide a service that you're charging pennies a
minute for, so the only way to pay off that investment is to "keep
the pipe filled." In the telecommunications-services market,
Rosenberg believes we're moving forward from a 100-year history
of circuit switching into a new frontier where cell-based switching
is becoming ubiquitous across networks. Companies must make
moves to keep abreast of technology if they want to continue to
survive in a fiercely competitive environment.
That means service
providers must integrate new technologies into their networks -
and the manufacturers that serve them have to have products
ready to meet this need.

Several drivers

Analysts attempting to put their finger on the driving force behind
mergers and consolidations point to three areas: market growth
and position, new technology, and customer demands. Most agree
that all three factors contribute to a favorable merger environment,
yet there is some division among market-research companies
regarding the primary driver.

McClimans believes the predominant driver is a company's
requirement to maintain high market growth. "I believe one of the
primary concerns of a company is to increase its stock values,"
says McClimans. A high level of company growth, he says, can
have a profound effect on the stock market.

To maintain a high market value, he believes, companies will seek
acquisitions for three reasons. First, they want to gain new
technologies and expertise to expand their market capabilities and
shore up their existing product technologies. Second, many
companies simply want to add mass to their infrastructure by
bringing on a diversity of products, a significant increase in staff,
and a rapid increase in revenue. They hope to join that "billion-,
5-billion-, or 10-billion-dollar club," in McClimans's words. Third,
acquisitions take place to gain access to new markets. To
penetrate a foreign market, for example, you need to "buy
somebody with a lot of feet on the street,"
McClimans explains.
Regardless of the motivation behind a merger, it will still boil down
to the necessity of maintaining an overall high level of company
growth, says McClimans.

On the other hand, Pioneer Consulting (Cambridge, MA) senior
analyst, Scott Clavenna, points to technology as the main driver of
recent mergers. The migration from time-division multiplexing
(TDM) to today's explosive DWDM technology is the principal
technological trigger, he says. By merging, says Clavenna,
companies can bring the latest technologies into their own
organizations and expand their product lines.

However, he agrees with McClimans that a primary reason for
merging is to gain access to a customer base. "By gaining access
to an acquisition's installed customer base and capital reserves,
products can be introduced more quickly into the market," says
Clavenna. "The DWDM and fiber access markets are growing so
quickly that time-to-market can make a tremendous difference
between success and failure."
[Time-to-market has always been ASND's strength.]

Finally, customer demands and the telecommunications provider's
absolute need to meet them are, in some opinions, driving more
mergers. With competition raging throughout the industry,
satisfying customer needs is critical if a provider wants to remain
positioned among its peers. According to Bill Kleinebecker, senior
consultant for Technology Futures Inc. (Austin, TX), a
telecommunications technology management company, the real
drivers are the standout telecommunications service providers.
These providers have a requirement to meet customer demand for
more services from a single source.

"They, in turn, select their equipment manufacturer based not only
on where they will get the best deal in terms of quality and price to
make bundled services possible," says Kleinebecker, "but also
where they can get the advanced technology that fits and will
bridge to their view of the future network. Service providers, to
more safely navigate toward that technology vision, will pick a
single equipment partner to supply that future vision."


That doesn't mean telecommunications providers must actually
acquire equipment manufacturers, says Kleinebecker, because
there is a distinct boundary there. It does mean, however, they
must take a certain amount of risk in deciding which technology
combinations, such as Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), new
fiber products, and DWDM, to pick for their service offerings and
then determine which equipment vendor they will work with to
supply that technology.

"The equipment provider that offers the largest portfolio of those
technologies most in demand, whether gained through acquisitions,
mergers, or agreements, will be the one who remains competitive,"

says Kleinebecker. "So as more new technologies become
necessary, companies will seek to acquire them, and mergers are
one way they're doing it."

Outlook for upstarts

How do small companies break into an industry that is increasingly
being dominated by fewer and fewer - but larger and larger -
companies? "By being faster, better, and cheaper," says Insight's
Rosenberg. "There will always be a role for the better and
probably the faster, although cheaper is becoming less and less
significant because of downward pressures on cost."

Companies developing specialized technology or manufacturing
processes that either add value to a component or system or
reduce its cost will find a niche, agrees Pioneer's Clavenna.
However, he believes cost will continue to be a major determinant
as the DWDM market moves into local exchanges. Low-cost
components, subsystems, and manufacturing processes will be
highly sought after in this market over the next decade, he says.

Generally, the future of the fiber optics industry is not conducive to
new ventures, according to most researchers. The stakes are high,
the risks are great, and the support requirements are substantial -
as are the odds against smaller players keeping pace. "Most small
players are hoping and wishing and praying every night that
somebody comes along and justifies the money they've borrowed
from venture funds," says McClimans of Current Analysis. "Money
is flowing into emerging companies for one of two reasons - either
to create a company that can dominate the marketplace and be a
significant challenger to the top tier or to build a company that can
be acquired for a relatively quick rate of return. In this
marketplace, slow growth is almost as bad as no growth."

But McClimans concedes there is some hybrid space in the
middle. Some venture funds are looking to invest in firms they
believe can carve out a niche and maintain that niche. Usually,
though, it's a fallback position, he says. If the company fails in
several areas, it can at least fall back into a niche it can defend.

More of the same

It is almost a certainty, say the analysts, that more mergers and
acquisitions are in the future for the fiber-optics industry. The
technology is ever-changing, the stock market is favorable, and
customers are demanding more from suppliers and providers.

"The prognosis for the near-term future is more of the same at an
increasing pace," says McClimans. "Every company out there has
its own business plan and strategy. Every time an acquisition
occurs, it forces them to rewrite that strategy."
[Can you say NT/BAY?]

From a day-to-day operations perspective, companies are unable
to take every contingency into account, so being prepared for
industry shake-ups is far from an exact science. Some companies,
McClimans says, will discover, almost overnight, that they are no
longer number one, or even number two, in terms of market
presence, size, valuation, and growth. This realization may force
them to speed the pace of mergers and acquisitions to regain their
position in the marketplace.
So, hold onto your hats, say the
analysts. The future of fiber will likely be full of surprises.

Back to the Features Index



Home | Electronic Press Room | This Week in Fiber | Subscribe | 1998 Media Kit | Calendar of Events | Site
Map | Add Your Company | Meet the Publisher | Company Index | Contractors | Categories | Sponsors,
Advertisers | Ask the Expert! | Product Showcase | LiveEvents! | Search

The Communications Web Sites



Broadband Guide | Contractors Directory | LiveEvents! | LIGHTWAVE Xtra! |
Wireless Integration Xtra! | Cable Foreman Xtra! | Cabling Installation & Maintenance
Xtra!

Visit the Optoelectronics Web Sites
Meet the Publisher

Comments or Questions about this site, please contact the Webmaster.
cCopyright 1995-1998 PennWell Media Online LLC

This page was updated on 7-Aug-98.