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 : Lucent Technologies (LU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Phoenix who wrote (5169)	12/8/1998 8:01:00 PM
From: Bindusagar Reddy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21876

Gary, what I said is known and public information, that is ATT FIASCO. Stratacom latest products are inferior to oldest CASCADE products. I had to stop you from posting mis-information. What do you know about IBM especially the reasons for selling their network. THese big companies do that for several reasons. They may not want to be in that business. Make a stupid statement, like they had to sell or replace 9000 is totally ridiculous and irresponsible on your part. Where as my statement about Stratacom FIASCO is 100% truth, you know it. Just accept and move on. BR

To: The Phoenix who wrote (5169)	12/8/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: Mr.Fun	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21876

Gary, Just wanted to jump in to support you here, and to try to re-establish my neutral credentials. My discussions with IBM indicate a frustration with the BSTDX platform, but more that IBM wanted it to do more than the product was really intended to do. It is not really a ATM switch. Although Ascend provided 45Mbps ATM interfaces, it works alot better as a frame relay fan out box at the edge of a true ATM core (CBX500s or GX550s). IBM knew they had to update their architecture and the decision to sell the whole thing to AT&T was an easy one. Now the whole thing will end up being migrated to AT&Ts Ascend-based ATM backbone and the 9000 issue goes away, at least for the domestic part of the network. A couple of points though. This is a case of a product being stretched beyond its capabilities, not the case of a bad or old product. The 9000 is still the most cost effective way to provide frame relay service available from any vendor. Second, I believe IBM would have ended up selling the network even if the 9000s weren't an issue. IP backbone is a big boy's business - 45Mbps ain't going to cut it. IBM did not and was not going to have enough volume to compete with the UUNets and Sprints of the world, better to sell it to AT&T which could use the traffic and can run the service at a fraction of IBM's cost.