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 : TLAB info? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doughboy who wrote (3014)	8/14/1998 7:08:00 PM
From: Bill Day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7342

DougHboy, Good posts today. Obviously you paid more attention to the CC than the market did. I just want to reiterate some of your posts. CIEN did not lose an existing contract. ATT decided to continue buying LU's 16 channel system while most of their competitors are moving up to 40 channels and soon to 96. Ciena had 11 customers last quarter. Neither TLAB nor CIEN have ever sold much to ATT. Mr. Birck admitted that T prefers to do business with LU. T Rowe Price's Chip Morris even suggested that TLAB should forget about ATT and let them take the chance on being stuck with inferior technology. CIEN still has the only 40 channel system shipping right now, and it accounted for more than half of last quarter's sales. Somebody must be buying them. Without the $25M order pushed out of the shortened 3Q, this call wouldn't even have happened. Birck and one of the CIEN guys, each said that the quarter's shortfall was an aberration, and gross margins would be back up to the 52-55% next Q, except that CIEN won't be reporting separately again. I couldn't see a reason for this big a selloff, especially after TLAB had already lost $20 from its high, largely because of the same "news" about T having already been reported. Bill

To: Doughboy who wrote (3014)	8/16/1998 6:39:00 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7342

>> CIEN never booked revenue from AT&T, and never said it would--it's disingenous to make it seem that CIEN mislead investors about this potential customer. << I disagree. CIEN did lead investors to believe that AT&T would contribute to the bottom line. They never promised anything for 1998, but gave investors the impression it was a question of "when" not "if". >> IMO, it would have been shocking if T chose CIEN over LU... << I disagree. CIEN led investors to believe that T was going to do business with CIEN. They may still do business with T, but the relationship looks more tenuous. >> and while it would have been real GRAVY for it to happen, I don't think it fundamentally damages CIEN. << Once again, I respectfully disagree. How can potentially losing out on a customer that was forecast to spend well in excess of $100 million not be fundamentally damaging? CIEN was counting on T for a lot of business in 1999. Now there is uncertainty as to how much business CIEN will get if any at all. >> The key is CIEN staying on the cutting edge of DWDM << I don't think that will be a problem. LU is behind the eight ball and they know it.