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 : Voice-on-the-net (VON), VoIP, Internet (IP) Telephony -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (1945)	11/17/1998 9:23:00 AM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3178

Maybe they use the "fear of flight" theory. If you don't implement within your monopoly, you have no fear of infiltration. <g> Regards, Stephen

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (1945)	11/17/1998 12:13:00 PM
From: WTC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

Re: <ILECs are incredibly anal when it comes to uniformity of delivery over a particular serving area.> Well, that premise might make for an interesting sidebar discussion, but clearly, an important issue in Bacco's (questionally arrived at) assertion is the "ultimately", not just the "50% to 60%." ILEC deployments are major capital investments using capital that therefore will not be available for other good and potentially profitable corporate purposes. Given the range of investment opportunities, a prudent ILEC generally anticipates that any major investment would begin generating material revenue flows within a year (not payback, but material revenue flows, meaning the capital has not been effectively warehoused as a non-producing asset.) A new capital investment, given the range of investment opportunities, should not create new expense streams that are not commensurate with the new revenues. Do you imagine Bacco is including lines behind DSL, or lines that will someday be shortened by deployment of additional remote switches and unloaded, or presumed reach extension via the g.lite specification, etc.? I would bet yes on at least the DSL and G.lite questions (I don't think TeleChoice has the granularity in their estimates to distinguish between a copper F2 vs. a copper F1+F2.) So when will the DSL limitation be "fixed?" Should be anticipate xDSL opportunity will trigger a turnover of substantial DSL investment that is not now and will never be compatible with any integrated xDSL product evolution? If so, would such a DSL modernization program happen in 3 years ... 5 years ... 10 years? Is the success in flattening all of the current g.lite issues already a foregone conclusion? Filters will take care of all of those untidy impedance excursions when a telephone goes off-hook? The working groups tackling G.hs, G.ploam, G.test, and G.ref will bring home their consensus conclusions on the same schedule as G.lite? Is there an implicit assumption within the "ultimate" guess that wireless local loop (WLL) will never accomplish any material penetration in ILEC local networks, e.g., to replace and provide for growth in high-cost loop areas? I don't argue that WLL will penetrate, but I don't foreclose the possibility either, depending on cost trends with that technology. For an ILEC that lives or dies by provisioning efficiency that keeps customer acquisition and service initiation costs low, what is the cost impact of selling and delivering services through channels that will only produce one revenue stream for every two sales and sometimes two installation unit costs? What about the open-ended staff time required to explain the holes in the cheese, and pacify customers who are part of the currently unservable? If truly xDSL servable customers actually ramp relatively slowly from a lower percentage up to the Telechoice "50% to 60%" ultimate estimate (which I think is low), do the incremental sales channel costs swamp out the margins in the new xDSL revenue streams for a longer time than any ILEC wants to contemplate? Are marketing, technical, and financial concerns about such issues legitimate and prudent ones that any commercial enterprise ought to consider carefully before embarking on major investment plans and operational dislocations? The investment level might consume 20% of the annual construction program for several years, and turn the ILEC network operations world on its head. Or do you hold to your assertion that any pause is just a sign of "incredibly anal" thinking and performance? We used to have an expression, "ready, fire, aim." Any chance here that the most aggressively deploying ILECs could be falling into that pattern? And we have not even touched on the regulatory uncertainty that overhangs any and all ILEC investment in xDSL enabling technology prior to the FCC's resolution of 706 controversy (CC Docket 98-188.) Will the FCC have the last word on that? Anyone want to bet that no judge will touch it before it finally comes to rest? What is the timetable for all of that? Do I sound defensive? Hope not! :) Tim

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (1945)	11/18/1998 6:52:00 AM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Respond to of 3178

MOTOROLA / NETSPEAK CONVERGE IN VoIP: Building on its strength in data/voice convergence technology, Schaumburg, Ill.-based Motorola Inc. [MOT] is allying with Boca Raton, Fla.-based NetSpeak Corp. [NSPK] in a three-part strategy to expand functionality and interoperability between the two companies' voice over IP products. end > > > How many times are we reminded that to thrive in this increasingly deregulated Global Telecom market, you have to be willing to expand your business beyond its companies borders, and partner with other providers. It "IS" the only passport to success it seems in the now highly competitive IP-world.