Lazarre said: >wondering if that may be the central reason for the disinterest in IIXC which has had a " For Sale Sign " around it's neck since February.<
In response to what Frank said:
<<The authors' time might have been better spent if they had
focused on those attributes of the current buildouts, instead.>>
Lazarre, I'm not sure if I see the linkage between my statement and your question.
I've had some difficulty in the past assessing why IIXC is valued and generally regarded the way they are, but it seems right to me now.
They cannot be placed into the same category as LVLT, QWST, GBLX, for reasons which may seem cliche, but, IMO, are valid.
Their stated aspirations were never that high, to begin with, and since I know a little bit about their origins, I'll only speak in generalities here. Indeed, they did hang the "for sale" sign around their own necks.
They don't have the star power to draw the same kind of interest that the others possess. Each of the others has a CEO who at multiple times in the past has proven to be a star player in his own right, by one measure or another, in multiple interstate and local endeavors. These other CEOs have the necessary draw, in other words, that IIXC is missing, and to go with that star power, more importantly, they have the necessary visions that are unmatched by IIXC's, as well. Some may argue with this, on an individual CEO level, but in general, I believe this to be true.
Even with IIXC's most recent press release proclaiming their being a next gen contender, notwithstanding, their Internet Services page is still painted from top to bottom with what George calls DS Zero Cage offerings. And that's their "Internet Services" page on the web, I'm referring to.
>>Their fiber buildout began, if I'm not mistaken, in 97-98. Has the technology advanced that much since then?<<
While fiber tech has advanced since then, and no doubt it has during the past two years, it's the technology of the Internet, and more importantly, the optical layer itself, that has soared right past them, from what I can see.
As for their salability, they have a robust enough fiber base on many routes, I think, that is ripe for the taking, but their other network infrastructure elements are replete with technologies that will soon be valued at some drastically reduced fraction of their recent cost, before long.
If you think about it, one could rationalize that some of these network elements (switches, cross connects, SONET ADMs, etc.) might be suitable for auctioning, leaving the rest of the fiber plant up for direct sale to a suitor. But it doesn't work that way. To do something along those lines would be entirely disruptive to existing customers' services, unless we're talking about doing something intensely surgical along the lines of a phased migration. And picking up the existing customer base would be among the primary considerations for purchasing them, in the first place.
Netting it out, they didn't aim high enough, they don't have the right kinds of goals in mind, they don't have the right kinds of embedded networking to do the job (even if they had all of the other items, above), and they lack the star player draw needed these days to prove that one has the inherent ability to send photons down on a channel made of glass.
All, IMHO, and Regards, Frank Coluccio |
