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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr.Fun who wrote (25660)	5/13/1999 9:15:00 PM
From: zbyslaw owczarczyk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Mr.Fun< witness NN, which has tenaciously defended its installed base, winning follow-on contracts despite a technical solution that many in the industry > Talking about NN. Do you realized that up until spring of 1998 C&Wwas buying mainly from CSCO and NT. Then NN won 200+ million pounds deal for UK expansion and lion shares of 1 billion for European expansion(beyond UK). Add to that global ATM and US which will come soon. Yes, big contract (300+ million US) with SBC you can call in combat, but 500+ million US ( which includes Sprint International, DT and FT part of venture) is contract for new network. Did you notice that Bell Atlantic was No2 customers for NN (CE,FR). And BA did not buy any of 4000DVC platform yet. Check out your sources about what is going on with ASND at Bell A. I am talking about what they promised on FR and CE. Deal with ATT solutions last year has nothing to do with legacy carriers: Look at NN SI post(contract) by Pat about NN in IBM network, Citibank or BankOne. Talking about NN switches. In December, customers will have in quantities 50 gig switch( testing in September) and 320 backplain speed at the beginning of 2000. This switch will be used as core, but can be easily used as edge switch. NN is wining lots of emerging carriers recently, after refocusing its sales force from LAN (which they exited ) to emerging carries. You talk about technical aspects of current 36170. Why ASND or CSCO can not provide commercial LMDS-huge market on the same platform which is running CE,FR,ADLS,IP and TDM. NN gears were designed for different market then ASND. Do not forget 36177, light version of 36170 for smaller carriers. May be this will remaind you about technical aspects,BTW you never responded to post below: Mr.Fun (10909 ) From: Tera Bit Wednesday, Apr 21 1999 12:06PM ET Reply # of 11532 > If Ascend's products are so patently inferior, why do they have > higher revenues from these products, and why have these apparently > technically competent organizations purchased their equipment? I would not say their product is "inferior". It was designed with a different set of goals in mind. Some obviously believe they make a "better" box. Proponents of that view invariably point to price per port. That is the primary reason why ASND has done so well with CLECs and alternates. IMO, it is also why they have done well at the incumbants. Most of the carriers you listed have equipment from each vendor deployed. Finally, don't fool yourself into believing deployment plans are made by "technically competent" beings. For example, I have heard these technically competent folks talk about the "incredible" port densities of ASND's swithces. They point to the fact things like their 4 port OC3 card and say "amazing". Many of those idiots never stop to consider why you only ever see one of those cards in a C5. They don't realize that none of those other slots can be used. >Furthermore, Ascend's gross margins were 63.3% over that time, while >NN's were 58.3%. Why is NN not earning a substantial price premium, >given its superior technology? IMO, past managment at NN did a poor job, especially on containing costs. I also believe (perhaps incorrectly) that NN's product is far more complex than ASND's. That complexity is double edge sword as complexity makes for a harder product to support. If true, that would be reflected in margins. >More questions: Why did LU pay $20 billion for ASND when it clearly >could have had NN for far less money? Location, location, location. ASND makes a nice, relatively simple set of switches. Their positioning and marketing of the 9000/500 has been superb. They have been designed and positioned as "no frills" data switches. They have been marketed as if they are several orders of magnitude denser than the competition. (SVC marketing was nice and sly too) That has played well, especially to the CLEC/alternate space. (i.e. carriers that deploy far more aggressivley than RBOCs) Traditionally, things like "multi service" has meant FR on one box (9000) and ATM (500) to ASND. With the new switch announced earlier this week they have put some adaptation cards for CE service on a 3rd box and can now offer FR (9000) ATM (500), CE (250) and of course the 550 is their core ATM. IMO, it's fair to say that multi-service means multi boxes. But I ramble, ASND & NN are the leaders in this space. My gut tells me NN leads carrier ATM and ASND leads carrier FR.

To: Mr.Fun who wrote (25660)	5/14/1999 2:21:00 PM
From: The Phoenix	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Mr Fun. Well, when you look at the environement in a discrete fashion I agree. Product on product - incubment in the core versus not. However, in building tomorrows end to end multiservice networks there will need to be strong interworking between premise, edge, and core devices. It's almost a case of (or could be) of the tail wagging the dog. If a service provider wants to be able to deliver a clean, multiservice on IP solution (and remember we're all using IP at home) then the end devices are CSCO (Cisco Networks) the edge devices are Csco, and the core is??? Currently ASND, NN, etc.. Going forward Csco I suspect csco to leverage their presense to their benefit in the core. LU/ASND doesn't have the edge/premise story. Could this be why they're looking at COMS???? YIKE! OG