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 : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankosonik who wrote (14593)	5/4/1999 8:34:00 AM
From: KYA27	Respond to of 41369

Cisco pulls the plug on key WAN switch Data giant shifts wide-area switching strategy. By JIM DUFFY Network World, 05/03/99 SAN JOSE - Cisco has quietly killed its prime offering for the core of enterprise and service provider WANs and has delayed delivery of another WAN switch by about a year. The developments raise questions about Cisco's strategy for next-generation WAN switching and could cost the company business. Cisco users who were depending on these products will now have to put their plans on hold, opt for different Cisco gear, wait for the delayed products or choose another vendor's switch. Cisco has halted development of the TGX 8750, an IP and ATM switch for service provider and enterprise WAN backbones. The TGX 8750 was announced at the ATM Year 98 show last June (NW, May 25, 1998, page 70). The switch was supposed to go into field trials last year and ship this year. Cisco will now offer its MGX 8850, which is currently positioned as a service provider edge switch, for the WAN core, says Don Proctor, director of marketing for Cisco's Multiservice Switching business unit. Cisco has also delayed shipment of the IGX 8450, a WAN switch that also combines IP and ATM switching for enterprise data, voice and video integration. The IGX 8450 was supposed to ship in the fourth quarter of 1998 but won't be available until this fall, Proctor says (NW, Oct. 5, 1998, page 12). Analysts say Cisco could forfeit WAN business to rivals Ascend and Newbridge Networks, as well as to the high-speed router start-ups. "Wow," says Scott Heritage of investment firm Warburg Dillon Read in New York when told of the fate of the TGX 8750. "That's not a good sign. The product looked very promising on the drawing board, and I was quite optimistic about it. Obviously, they've been having problems." "Killing a product like that is significant because that whole announcement as I recall [positioned Cisco] far and away ahead of Ascend," says Rosemary Cochran of market researcher Vertical Systems Group in Dedham, Mass. "Very interesting," says Joe Skorupa of consultancy Ryan, Hankin, Kent in San Francisco. "I'm not surprised about the 8750. We never thought it was a serious player at the core." The TGX 8750 was a 20G bit/sec optical core switch intended to deliver broadband IP and ATM services using Cisco's Tag Switching and the Internet Engineering Task Force's Multiprotocol Label Switching technologies. Cisco designed the TGX 8750 to let users scale routing to terabit speeds and to bring OC-48c switching to the core "at a price that leads the industry," according to a Cisco press release - $60,000 per OC-48c switch and $45,000 for channelized OC-48. Proctor says Cisco killed the switch because the company couldn't build the product to come in at those promised prices. "It proved very difficult to produce one switch that would meet the enterprise customer's unique needs and the service provider's unique needs at the price they expect," Proctor says. He adds that Cisco's MGX 8850 has more than enough capacity, density and features to fulfill both the core and network edge roles in service provider and enterprise networks. Cisco delayed the IGX 8450 because it wants to add voice and virtual trunking capabilities to the switch. The IGX 8450 is a 3.2G bit/sec IP and ATM switch that connects LANs, legacy data, PBXs and video codecs across private WANs. The delay will not likely impact IGX user Fleet Technology Solutions of Albany, N.Y., the IT division of banking giant Fleet Financial Group in Boston. "We've gone through several reorganizations which have realigned certain resources as well," says Thomas Ryan, assistant vice president at Fleet Technology Solutions. "We've postponed the integration to a broadband core." Ryan says he expects to resume that integration and receive shipment of the IGX 8450 in six months. Next Previous

To: frankosonik who wrote (14593)	5/4/1999 8:38:00 AM
From: KYA27	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41369

Network World article mentioned - "Cisco is the only major vendor that won't take part in the Network World/Tolly Group Switch Metric test program. Hardly a leadership position", full artcile below: --------------------------- How is Cisco different from 3Com, Allied Telesyn, Alteon, Anritsu, Cabletron, Compaq, D-Link, Extreme, Foundry, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Lucent, Madge, Nbase, Neo Networks, Nortel/Bay, Olicom, Performance Technologies, VIPswitch and Xylan? Cisco is the only major vendor that won't take part in the Network World/Tolly Group Switch Metric test program. Hardly a leadership position. The Switch Metric is de-signed to make it easier for you to buy switches. It determines a relative cost for each gigabit of throughput you're buying, analogous to the cost-per-MIPS metric used to benchmark computers. With vendors these days talking about wire-speed this and wire-speed that, the Switch Metric is a tool to help you sort out competing claims. Tests are conducted on an ongoing basis, and the results will be available through the Network World and Tolly Group Web sites. Our first article on the tests will appear next week, based on examinations of 15 switches from nine vendors. (For details, go to www.nwfusion.com and enter DocFinder: 1235.) NetWorld+Interop has committed to a special session in which Tolly Group experts will showcase our findings. All the vendors listed above think the Switch Metric is a good idea - except Cisco. Cisco says customers aren't interested in performance tests, but rather want "systems tests" that focus on "robust features and essential functionality to run mission-critical enterprise networks." "This is analogous to only studying the Colorado River while trying to understand the magnificent ecosystem of the Grand Canyon," one executive told us. Whew! It's hard to argue against Mother Nature. In fact, we agree that testing those higher-level functions makes sense. We continue to do that. But the Switch Metric is a baseline that will help you determine how solid a foundation all those higher-level functions are built on. Cisco says you don't need this information. I couldn't disagree more. If you're a Cisco customer, ask your rep why Cisco won't make your life easier by taking part in the Switch Metric. If you're one of Cisco's competitors, you should be getting every customer to ask that question. - John Gallant, Editor in chief jgallant@nww.com --------------------------- IMO, Gbit startups such as Extreme, Foudry and Alteon have already taken mkt share away from CSCO. Just take a look at many of the Internet Portals and ISPs where they're using these startups switches. In the ATM WAN switch mkt, ASND (LU) and FORE already taken a big lead. (See previous post on ATM WAN switch) Seems like going into the low-end consumer mkt segment to make up for these, afraid will meet similar faith like COMS, which if it is, will drop the price to the 40s in no time. All imo.

To: frankosonik who wrote (14593)	5/4/1999 10:02:00 AM
From: Rusty Johnson	Respond to of 41369

AOL Bails? Upside The Take May 04, 1999 by Phil Harvey Try not to shed a tear for America Online now that it reportedly has pulled out of the bidding war for MediaOne (UMG). AOL's world, as we know it, won't end if it can't help Microsoft and Comcast (CMCSK) stop AT&T (T) from plunking down $62 billion for the Colorado-based cable company. When MediaOne's board of directors accepted AT&T's most recent bid, it gave Comcast until Thursday to make a counteroffer or go home empty-handed. (Empty-handed in this case includes the $1.5 billion fee MediaOne must pay Comcast if a rival tops its original $60 billion bid.) AOL has the kind of content that, at any given moment, some 19 million people desire. If all of those folks were to suddenly be blessed with broadband access, you can bet a fair number would be whining for access to AOL. In the interest of keeping a customer who'll pay for access, it seems cable network operators would be remiss not to recognize the demand. "Connectivity isn't everything anymore," says Jim Balderston, director of Zona Research. "Having a high-speed connection is great, but you want to do stuff, too." This is not to say that AOL doesn't have a vested interest in the race to acquire broadband pipes to consumer homes. But it's safe to say AOL isn't ruined if it did indeed back out of helping Comcast mount a successful counteroffer to AT&T. "We have a lot more time to worry about how all these partnerships work out then we're led to believe," says Daniel King, an analyst at LaSalle St. Securities Inc. in Chicago of the current MediaOne melee. King says that while AOL would enjoy a captive audience through cable deals, consumers will eventually insist on broadband access to AOL's content no matter what provider they use. upside.com page 2: World Domination Still, AOL's beef with Ma Cable's world domination strategy doesn't hinge solely upon its own strategy for world domination. AOL CEO Steve Case testified before a Senate committee in mid-April claiming that cablers such as Time Warner and AT&T--now owner of TCI--could use their network to become the exclusive providers of high-speed Internet access. Of course, Case's testimony falls into the "takes one to know one" category. But even in light of AOL bowing out of the Comcast bidding war, AOL is not up the creek when it comes to broadband access. Passing on the MediaOne deal could even give AOL more fodder for Case's "they won't play fair" crusade. AOL also enjoys another mighty hook for consumers, as Zona's Balderston notes--it sells companies access to its customers via their portal deals. These are customers AOL knows lots about, quite a desirable group. Cable companies could yearn for what AOL has built, and enter into licensing deals. One day broadband providers could be begging for AOL content. Or AOL could beg--and pay dearly--to get its service on tightly controlled cable systems in some places. Keep in mind that Jupiter Communications Inc. forecasts that by 2002 only 20 percent of US households will access the Internet via broadband connections. While the perception may be that AOL needs to move swiftly to get a foothold in the broadband world, AOL is the stronger force in consumers' lives--particularly those that can't open a cereal box without finding an AOL CD. Whatever happens with MediaOne, the good ship AOL hasn't run aground by refusing to make cable acquisition deals that are over its financial head. Its stock won't take long to recover from its Monday beating--and continue its Net domination. upside.com