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 : Global Crossing - GX (formerly GBLX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mazman who wrote (126)	12/28/1998 11:07:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15615

Mazman, your post is interesting to me from a number of perspectives. It probably boils down to semantics, and how you want to classify your investment groups. I agree with your bandwidth assumptions, and the wisdom of stocking up on b-w enabling cos. But the ones you've listed, with the possible exception of this one (GBLX, because it is actually placing the fiber into the sea), are almost exclusively "consumers and deliverers" of bandwidth in the fulfillment of their 'services,' but they are not the fundamental enablers of b-w, IMO. I haven't anything against the cos you've selected from an intrinsic standpoint, far from it, I just don't see them at the 'heart' of the b-w solution, rather I see them as packagers and transporters of this commodity, instead. Which isn't bad in itself, and probably good to hold on to for that category of investments, but not for basic b-w enablement. If your goal is to capitalize on those who will make b-w more abundant from the creation standpoint, then I would go after the root... i.e., those cos whose business it is to drive the next several powers of ten into those backbones which are owned by your picks. Like MFNX, QWST, IIXC, CIEN, Pirelli, NT, LU (although the last two are not pure plays in this field, granted) some of the Terabit routers, emerging optical routing cos, etc. These will be the companies that your picks are currently, and will continue, buying from in the future in order to shore up their b-w deficits. And for what it's worth, while WCOM has an extremely rich mix of services today, near to the point of being unrivaled, they also provide ample bottle-necks because of their multi-layered (what would you expect after so many acquisitions?) legacy infrastructures, with the possible exceptions of UUNet and some of the more recent CLECs they've picked up. Second thought, most of those CLECs themselves have followed nearly the same basic model of pre-Bell System divestiture, as well, when it comes to switched hierarchical architectures, with some modifications. As it probably still should be, until the IETF along with the ITU, and evolution, take their due course. All of the above will need to acquire from the stable I've indicated in order to extricate themselves from the quagmire of DS0-bound switched-service nuts and bolts that have been their mainstay for so many years. Like I say, it's probably only a matter of semantics, but sometimes it's useful, IMO, to slice and dice these issues in order to gain a clearer sense about them. Regards, Frank Coluccio

To: Mazman who wrote (126)	12/28/1998 9:11:00 PM
From: Teddy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15615

Well its about time this dog moved up <G> And six post in one day! That might be a record. Hi Mazman, welcome to the thread. I called the company about two weeks (talked to some guy in Corporate Communications, not Cynthia), and I didn't think of it at the time, but Fourth Quarter Results and the Completion of AC1 seem pretty close to 180 days from August 13th. I remember reading predictions that BRCM would tank after the lock up ended: actually it doubled. I think Global Crossing's management, Underwriters and original investors have enough wisdom and experience to be able to place any shares that might sold without causing too much trouble. (Did you read those funny 1% rules on page 75?)