nanog mailing list archives
RE: Sprint peering policy
From: alex () yuriev com
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
Alex, *I* can't make any claims, since that would be making a forward-looking statement, y'know... and after today's WorldCom "events", I can hardly say that trusting analysts is a good thing, but if you take the time to do some research on ALGX, you'll probably see things like: consistency in meeting Wall St. expectations, a stong management team (after all, they *did* build MFS), and a conservative balance sheet. We're talking about some experienced, reputable good ol' boys who know enough only acquire profitable businesses for pennies on the dollar, and only build from success-based capital. If you take a good, hard look at the company as a whole, you'll see a company that has yet to deviate from its original plan, regardless of economic climate, and will tell you is still on target for profitability. These are all things I've learned from my own due dilligence via research on the web, and I'm sure you'll find the same.
I know. It is going to be a localy company to add to WCOM, MFNXQ, ADELA, Q and others like that for exact reasons that you have listed. Cheers, Alex
Current thread:
- Re: Sprint peering policy, (continued)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Joseph T. Klein (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Paul Vixie (Jun 29)
- Message not available
- Re: Sprint peering policy ren (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Patrick W. Gilmore (Jun 29)
- Message not available
- Re: Sprint peering policy Patrick W. Gilmore (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Majdi S. Abbas (Jun 26)
- RE: Sprint peering policy alex (Jun 26)