Summary:

For some odd reason, the folks at Global Crossing are a tad touchy, mostly because we compared their strategy to Level 3. Of course they are a little miffed because we dredged up their past. But past is as much a part of the present and […]

For some odd reason, the folks at Global Crossing are a tad touchy, mostly because we compared their strategy to Level 3. Of course they are a little miffed because we dredged up their past. But past is as much a part of the present and of the future. Just a reminder folks, and that is why I said, atoned.

I am also not sure that Om grasps the challenges that the old IXC’s face. It’s not that Global Crossing or Level 3 are trying to transform themselves into a metro services company, it’s just that having robust metro networks are a critical component of improving the economics of your business. If every customer that you connect to your network requires an access loop, those charges that you incur for the loop negatively impact the margin of your sale. It is only natural for a company to seek out ways to improve margin by buying suppliers, is it not?

Of course I do… they just had to read previous coverage. The problem really is that of a little ‘sliced fiber’ between us and GC 2.0. Hopefully we shall apply a patch, and get the latest information soon to bring it to the readers. Just wondering: if VZ, AT&T, Qwest, XO, Level 3, and Global Crossing are going to be aggressive competitors in the “metro access” space, do you think this will result in price pressure?

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

Comments have been disabled for this post