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: Robert S. who wrote (155)	1/8/1999 1:33:00 PM
From: Teddy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15615

Snipped from Thestreetdotcom: thestreet.com 25 Winners for 1999 By Jim Seymour Special to TheStreet.com 1/8/99 12:56 PM ET ....Global Crossing (GBLX:Nasdaq). Big pipe under the Atlantic. Big revenues ahead. Big losses now. Big play coming up. Big acquisition likely. If you missed buying it at the August IPO, you can still get in: it's only doubled. ....

To: Robert S. who wrote (155)	1/10/1999 5:03:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15615

Robert S., I believe you were asking about the FCC petition and challenge by GBLX to the creation of a consortium in the Pacific. It takes a certain amount of temerity and chutzpa! for GBLX to suggest that their concerns have to do with rate payers having to pay higher rates, if the consortium is permitted to go ahead. Chutzpa, however, is not an entirely bad quality to possess these days, so I'll reserve judgement on their motivation. From one of the press releases: >>By teaming up [ with T ] , the group -- which also includes MCIWCOM Inc., British Telecom Plc and 30 other companies -- will stifle competition for international telecommunications services, Global Crossing told the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. Customers would get lower prices if the FCC forced these companies to build separate cables, Global Crossing said.<< Let me pick it up from several other directions, which I think are equally germane. The consortia approach has been one of long standing tradition in the international submarine and satellite spaces going back thirty some odd years, almost forty, in fact, when TAT-1 was laid. It is the "norm," in other words. In contrast, GBLX's initiatives are somewhat revolutionary, since they represent a "pure play" approach in this respect, thus relegating them in such a contest as the "exception" to the rule. How do you think that the FCC and the ITU member regulatory agencies are going to react? I frankly don't know, but if precedent is any guide... In earlier years I recall when the satellites pulled the same logic. They were, in fact, successful in getting the regs to agree to impose a standing ratio of submarine to satellite channels allowed for deployment. As the techs improved with time, the ratios shifted to accommodate newly derived levels of "fairness" to each. At one time it actually appeared that the sats would have the leverage over the subs, until fiber came onto the scene. I don't feel that the larger customers would feel entirely compelled to go with the cartel for several reasons. And these are among the most compelling of all reasons that typically guide networkers in this space. The two chief reasons center on (1) pricing leverage, and (2) the absolute need for physically diverse paths and redundancy. Aside from these reasons, I doubt seriously that demand will actually peak at levels below the capacity of either of these ventures (just the reverse is likely, and it will run out of control). This will likely cause both GBLX and JUS to search for ways to optimize their bandwidth in due time. In other words, neither will be able to satisfy demand for very long, and there will be additional cables pulled (as there are already, in fact) to pick up the slack. J MHO, Regards, Frank C.