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: Mr.Fun who wrote (7645)	4/30/1999 2:14:00 PM
From: The Phoenix	Respond to of 21876

Mr FUN!!! You sure have a lot of time.. but nice response... Let's go line by line... 1. The 7R/E packet driver has its own packet-based switching fabric (I think ATM, but I'm checking on it). The module has both line-side and trunk side interfaces, so if a call comes in on the 7R/E part of the switch and is destined for an IP trunk, it does not ever cross the TDM backplane. As I understand it the Packet Driver has the ability to take circuit switched traffic and packetize it...in effect providing better use of core network resources. However, the Packet Driver sits behind the 5ESS and therefore the 5ESS and it's TDM architecture remains a bottleneck. 2. ILECS,PTTs, IXCs and even CLECs have significant investments in class 5 central offices - over a trillion dollars worldwide. They are not going to pull these switches out under anyone's scenario - for the next 30 years or more the vast majority of lines coming into a telephone company will be copper POTs, and must be terminated in some sort of line card. What possible advantage would there be to pull out all these CO based line terminations? I agree about the investments, however smaller upstart SP's don't have these investments and are free to innovate and drive prices down. ILEC's and IXC's can either continue to ammoritize their equipment and lose customers or migrate. I suspect 30 years is too long. Furthermore, as you point out copper rules the day however as traffic (data and voice) become integrated into a single connection the need for copper will wane. This can happen via DSL, or through OCx connections from MSO's. The only thing that will keep this from happening is increases in mobile telephony... BTW: won't newer equipment also support POT's.....? 3. I cant' comment on Cisco's solution... however I don't think that is the issue. I wasn't drawing a comparision between the two companies...only between two architectures. 3(b). Agreed. Line side interfaces is not at issue. However this is the same argument made by companies professing IP architectures...that all services are ubiquotous. So, I'm not sure LU is raising the bar..they are simply front ending their 5E's with a new box which provides a wider range of interfaces. In addition they have taken intgrated software, ripped it out and placed it on a number of different servers...for services...OSS...etc.. Gee, this is begining to look familiar. Only problem is that the 5E architecture is still in the middle acting as a bottleneck. LU is simply trying to hold onto these products because they generate so much revenue. How come this isn't obvious??? In the end I think LU has the tools to compete. I also think 7R/E is a great move in the right direction..however I remain concerned that they migh try to hang onto their legacy products too long and thus deliver solutions that are more costly and less flexible. I know that today this is not an issue....they are very well positioned. But going forward LU will need to either update the 5E's (as opposed to wrapping a new skin around them to save them) or fall behind. JMO Mr. Fun. Go back and review 7R/E again. It's really quite simple - there's very little new other than the fact that they're trying to open up the environment for developers of new services. Underlying the solution is the 5E and it's TDM guts. OG

To: Mr.Fun who wrote (7645)	4/30/1999 4:53:00 PM
From: bill c.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21876

Mr Fun, Take a close look at the 5ESS AnyMedia xDSL rack, separate backplane for xDSL data traffic. This provides an integrated solution on the 5ESS, splits the data/voice on the xDSL shelve directing voice to a different shelve in the 5ESS racking and requires one loop through the MDF, unlike the ALA and CSCO solutions, which require two. Cisco must downplay the migration strategy on the 5ESS, DMS, etc , because they don't have one. Lucent can play both sides, while Cisco plays on one. This isn't the first time Gary has been incorrect, the ALA vs CSCO xDSL debate comes to mind. He still doesn't understand the need for manufacturing the DMT silicon, never will. Every Cisco xDSL modem sold to USWest has a "Manufactured by Lucent Technologies" label on the CAP silicon. What would happen it Lucent stopped make those CAP chips? Cisco doesn't have a secondary supplier for CAP since Lucent is the only manufacturer of CAP silicon... no more ADSL modems for USWest.