dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-09-26 09:35:36: In case you're one of the few folks still on Verizon's DSL service dreaming of upgrades, Verizon has again confirmed that once current franchise build obligations are completed, Verizon will not be expanding their FiOS services any further. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · next
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9

Re: 9;

said by openbox9:

The role of shareholders is more akin to that of the company, not a bank. Shareholders are owners and as such are entitled to the profits of the company. If you owned 1/4 of a business, wouldn't you expect to be compensated...at least a little? As I've stated many times, there is a balance between distributing profits to owners and reinvesting those earnings in the company for potential growth.

I certainly understand that the mechanism is different... yes, shareholders are considered owners of the company to the extent of the number of shares they own, but there is little (to no) effective difference between shareholders and a bank (unless you suggest they provide something other than funding). I would submit that a 1/4 owner of a business is there because he/she brought something to the table other than just funding. It is possible that there are there just for funding (and playing the exact role of a bank) but that begs the question... do they somehow deserve to have their profits maximized at the expense of the business model conceived by the other three? To answer your question (even though you side-stepped mine ) YES, as 1/4 owner, I would expect to be compensated with 1/4 the profits of the business. But I would also understand that I was there because I believed in the ability of the other three to make me profits using their business model and not try to modify it... otherwise, why would I have invested in the first place? People who contemplate this line of thinking will start to realize the true nature of Wall St.

While I see a great deal of imbalance in today's world, you HAVE stated many times the need for balance and I appreciate that... I do not see you as unreasonable and I enjoy the dialog.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926 to Mahalo

Member

to Mahalo

Re: Change of direction....

Yea, good luck streaming HD video, FiOS quality over a cell network, to millions of TV's. omg, some people.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

to CXM_Splicer

Re: 9;

If you must link investors to a bank, then I'll grant you that the debt holders are most like banks. Equity owners are not.
said by CXM_Splicer:

I would submit that a 1/4 owner of a business is there because he/she brought something to the table other than just funding.

And I would submit, from personal experience, that owners/investors don't have to play an active role and can indeed simply provide a line of funding to make a business work. Think silent investor.
said by CXM_Splicer:

do they somehow deserve to have their profits maximized at the expense of the business model conceived by the other three?

Once again, balance.
said by CXM_Splicer:

While I see a great deal of imbalance in today's world, you HAVE stated many times the need for balance and I appreciate that... I do not see you as unreasonable and I enjoy the dialog.

Thank you. Likewise to you good Sir.
said by CXM_Splicer:

To answer your question (even though you side-stepped mine )

I didn't sidestep your question considering I don't view equity owners as banks. The debt holders on the other hand, no, I would not expect them to receive their coupons beyond when their bonds mature, nor do they receive such payments.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer to openbox9

Member

to openbox9

Re: blah blah

said by openbox9:

The public has leased both of those resources to Verizon (and many other companies) for use to provide services. The public has agreed to the terms of those leases just as the companies have.

Verizon's customers paid for those leases and I'd like to see the part of their bill where they agreed to the terms (from politicians and bureaucrats) of those leases.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Revenues paid for the leases. I'm sure they're lined out as expenses in the companies' accounting. You likely won't see the lines.....especially on customers bills. If you want to see the terms of the leases, speak with your local lessors that conducted the negotiations on your behalf.

Mahalo
join:2000-12-20
united state

Mahalo to ITALIAN926

Member

to ITALIAN926

Re: Change of direction....

Good luck with your floppy drive...

TuxRaiderPen2
Make America Great Again
join:2009-09-19

TuxRaiderPen2 to Crookshanks

Member

to Crookshanks

Re: 9;

said by Crookshanks:
If passenger trains are so great why can't they successfully compete without support from the government?
Railroads that moved freight AND people ie: passenger service built some of the largest corporations and wealthiest persons in the US at one time. Combine the runs! If you have cars to take from area a to the yard in b to be transferred out to other trains put them in the consist for the passenger run, at least on the local/regional feeders to the high speed line.

Now a days the RR's reroute traffic around passenger service lines like they have the plague or something... gee they managed to share the same lines for hundreds of years before no reason they can't now, other than lawyers.

cars are a big part of the demise of train travel, and even air travel.
said by Crookshanks:
Do you really think that high speed rail offers benefits compelling enough to justify the use of eminent domain against countless property owners?
Had the RR not been allowed to abandon and let rot or allowed to remove lines, or abandon/remove/turn to trails a good bit of infrastructure would not have to be REBUILT but upgraded.

And YES 10000000% I approve of taking back the land to provide for a high speed rail feeder system to feed local service to every hick 1 cow town in the US!
said by Crookshanks:
What of the environmental impact of thousands of miles of new track?
I do not care one bit about environmental impacts.
said by Crookshanks:
How does it ever compete financially against air travel, which requires no new infrastructure, no use of eminent domain, and has no NIMBY pushback from the communities between point a and b?
Thats why the government will have to be the one to take the land and then turn it over to some one else OTHER THAN AMTRAK!

So how's that air travel working out????

Delta is killing its regional service, all those great regional jets are going to sit in the AZ desert now till the next revival... All the others are doing the same the regional airlines are going to be gone... Rail offers a good way to do local transit to feed to stations for regional rail travel and then on to the high speed line.

Cities are going to loose the only air travel they have! Some would required hours long drives. Rail service could pick this up.

I am all for regional airlines too... fuel cost is the problem.. it should not be... since the US occupies a country with the 3-4th largest oil supply... it should be running down the streets of the US like water. And similar cost... Put it in a tanker and ship it to the US.. Thats why we were/are there, period. The next problem is refining, the greenie weenie tree huggers kill every project for refineries or nuclear power plants. Arrested and deported for economic terrorism. bye bye enjoy Gitmo!

Plain and simple we need to get alternatives to oil for jet fuel, to electric generation to vehicle (cars/trucks) fuel.. If some South American country, brazil, can convert to ethanol than this country can too! Plenty of sources for it in non corn or other non food stocks.

1) Every oil burning electric plant in the US is REQUIRED to convert to nuclear or sustainable source (NOT COAL or Natural gas! has nothing to do with the environment! it needs to be a one time switch nuclear or some sort of other fuel, like garbage... that can be renewed.

2) gasoline vehicles are phased out for ethanol vehicles.

Ethanol is produced from what ever sustainable sources.. sugar cane, switch grass, garbage, grass clippings, wood processing remainders what ever.. there was a whole slew of development on these things...
said by Crookshanks:
I'm sorry, but I've never understood the fascination that people have with rail. It's great for moving freight, getting around the city, and for regional trips. Cross country trips? Not so much.
Because you have never ridden a train... Not ever trip is about being there instantly. If I have a time frame to meet then air travel is probably the only choice for some situations. Rail travel across the UK, france, Germnay etc. exists and is used by large.... Some time its not about getting there NOW NOW NOW.. its about getting there in peace and quiet.

I'll take trains when its possible and air when I need to... but trains is not an option for 98% of the US... At one time is was as ubiquitous as water. Thats a sad testament to this country.
TuxRaiderPen2

TuxRaiderPen2 to Crookshanks

Member

to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:

Fastest passenger train speed: 200mph
Time from NYC to LA: 14 hours

Jumbo jet cruising speed: 485mph
Time from NYC to LA: 6 hours

Hmm, perhaps this has something to do with it?


Not every one needs or wants to be there instantly, and cross country does not mean only la or nyc...both places I have no interest in visiting, living or anything else...

A high speed line needs to serve all major cities, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Nashville, Chattanooga, Mepmphis Dallas,Atlanta, chicago, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Reno, Salt Lake, san francisco, sacramento, san diego, Billings, Butte, etc...
TuxRaiderPen2

TuxRaiderPen2 to Crookshanks

Member

to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:
Why? What niche will it fill that isn't filled cheaper and more efficiently by air travel?
Many areas about to loose their ONLY portion of your annointed air service as the regional jets are parked, the regional airlines killed off all so very similar to the way passenger service on rail died.
said by Crookshanks:
advantage, TSA is currently attempting to expand their security theater into other forms of transportation, including rail and bus stations.
At least you got that part right... "theater."
said by Crookshanks:
So why doesn't the private sector do it? It would be all over it if there was money to be made.
The difference between the concept of profit and profiteering, thats why... companies will only take risks if there is HUGE PROFITS versus a smaller profit on the same project.
said by Crookshanks:
Why should the Government step in and spend billions of dollars on rail, particularly when we have other infrastructure (roads and bridges) demanding attention. That infrastructure is already the responsibility of Government, and most would agree that it's failing

J O B S..... Thats why... and no this ain't no "New Deal!"
indentured
join:2012-08-01
Whitestone, NY

indentured

Member

Horrible.

Horrible. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer in everyway including communications. The middle class is left to compete with both of them.
Expand your moderator at work
jetpowercom
join:2001-07-11
Culver City, CA

jetpowercom to FifthE1ement

Member

to FifthE1ement

Re: 9;

Apologies - just lurking here, trying to understand why Verizon is so weak-minded as to stop fiber a block away from my house, and noticed the claim that the Postal Service is "hemorrhaging" money.

Very briefly: USPS is designed to break even, and it does. Only since Congress throttled it in 2006 with the unique and extreme 75-in-10 not-yet-hired employees' retirement health care funding burden - with no means to address this debit - has USPS begun to experience its current paper crisis.

Rather than forcing sale of assets - high-volume post offices - where USPS profits are made, Congress could be tasking USPS, with its ginormous digital network and analog footprint, with a digital buildout that would both streamline its legal obligation to provide affordable communication to every American address and drive down the usurious cost of internet in America.

I said "briefly;" this is a bare summary, just to note that USPS is a balanced government service that pays for itself (but could wipe private carriers off the map if provided the same competitive tools they enjoy).

It comes down to where you draw the "essential/non-essential" line. I draw it at equal access to resources. That's the least (and perhaps that's all) that government should provide. The Post Office has provided equal access by law since our country's founding. All taxpayers - not just "ratepayers" - SHOULD pay for postal service, in whatever paper and digital forms its government agency can provide it.

Isn't equal communication what we all want? What a coincidence - it's also our Constitutional guarantee.
alancats
join:2000-09-20
New York, NY

1 recommendation

alancats to Xioden

Member

to Xioden
Sure; let's spend more money we don't have and incur even more indebtedness. Brilliant economic strategy.

If a business model has merit, the private sector will build it at its own expense, because money can be made off of it. When government interferes in the free market, the economic Darwinism of the free market falls by the wayside, and you end up with Solyndra, Fisker, etc. -- companies that used the artificial crutch of taxpayer funds to avoid developing viable business models, because they were artificially insulated from having to survive on merit and true competition and innovation.

Crony capitalism via handouts of taxpayer money to favored and well-connected campaign contributor businessmen is poor policy and even poorer economics.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

said by alancats:

If a business model has merit, the private sector will build it at its own expense, because money can be made off of it. When government interferes in the free market, the economic Darwinism of the free market falls by the wayside, and you end up with Solyndra, Fisker, etc. -- companies that used the artificial crutch of taxpayer funds to avoid developing viable business models, because they were artificially insulated from having to survive on merit and true competition and innovation.

Sorry but this is an oversimplified and unrealistic view. The Free Market is only an economic model for examining limited interaction... it is not reality. The fact is that business itself rejects the Free Market and moves the system further away from it whenever possible.

Your belief that the private sector will pursue a business model with merit is usually not true. Any large incumbent business that views smaller business as a competitive threat will actively try to destroy them though bankrupting legal actions, lobbying for discriminatory legislation, anti-competitive price fixing schemes, etc. Government is absolutely justified in stepping in where business deliberately screws things up.

And, in case you missed it, Xioden suggested diverting money from the defense budget (money we don't have that we are already spending) NOT to spend additional money as you suggested. I wholeheartedly agree with this... infrastructure improvements would be far better for the country than wasting money to protect us from... (whom exactly?) Because as you correctly point out 'handouts of taxpayer money to favored and well-connected campaign contributor businessmen is poor policy and even poorer economics'.
cpuoverck
join:2012-09-29

cpuoverck

Member

How Many?

OK, how many of you think that you can expect to have telephone, DSL, cable, four wireless phone, cable and fiber networks all serving the same customer base and have any one of them done well? What about satellite and maybe even data on power line or mesh networks?

Government granted monopolies are propping up the cable and phone companies and spectrum allocation is limiting wireless. The incumbent providers want to protect their monopolies and why shouldn't they if they can? Being a monopoly was a given when they got in this business.

We really need a (one) wireless voice/data network and a (one) land line voice/data network. With the money which has been spent on the current systems we could easily have top notch service almost every where. The trouble is the existing companies are all task with getting something back on their current systems and won't allow a wholesale change.

It's like having four different power grids, all built to serve everyone but each only serving one in four potential customers. It's expensive and won't work well.

I suppose if you bought out current networks and replaced them in an organized fashion some improvement could be made but this won't happen without government action and there are a lot of campaign contributions to be made (and votes to be bought) before this can happen. $$$$$

Conclusion: With the current mix of overlapping networks none of them are going to be fully satisfactory.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to TuxRaiderPen2

Member

to TuxRaiderPen2

Re: 9;

said by TuxRaiderPen2:

Because you have never ridden a train... Not ever trip is about being there instantly. If I have a time frame to meet then air travel is probably the only choice for some situations.

Actually, I have ridden on a train. Multiple times. I live in the Northeast, the only part of the country where rail travel is self-sustaining.

The "it's not about being there instantly" mentality is why trains will never be profitable, because with few exceptions that's exactly what it's about. Ocean liners died out precisely because air travel got you there in hours, not days. Cruise ships are still around but that's an entirely different market than ocean liners, they are catering to people who view the trip itself as the vacation, with all of the assorted luxuries that a cruise ship can provide.

Could you take that business model to trains and make it profitable? Possibly. I've always wanted to take the trans-Siberian railway across Russia and would consider making a similar trip across the United States. I don't think it would be nearly as successful as the cruise industry but you could probably make it self sustaining. Note that is an idea for a novelty/luxury service like cruise ships, not as a means of travel, and I would not condone my Government spending tax dollars on such a venture when we need them elsewhere.
said by TuxRaiderPen2:

Rail travel across the UK, france, Germnay etc. exists and is used by large....

Those countries are a lot smaller than the United States. Why don't you look at the whole of Europe and ask yourself how many people really take a train from Madrid to Moscow, or from Helsinki to Rome? The numbers are small to non-existent, air travel is the clear winner at those distances.

ventura
@virginmedia.com

ventura

Anon

its not a dream that burst - just economics of city v rural

fixed line is tough when you have a cable rival but they are building where they planned because that can make money - the article is quite clear re low density places. They will not extend the footprint because it is not going to make money. Thats obviously correct. Rural areas were subsidised in the age of copper build and will need to be so again if they want fibre. No private company can be expected to provide a social service unless paid to do so. Its not their job.

mark4386
@verizon.net

mark4386

Anon

Shammo

That idiot asshole needs to be ousted from verizon and threw in the street to be run over a million times

WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX

WHT

Member

Pass Perspective

I suppose that means there can be a fiber backhaul line running down the street, but not available for any taps.
dubenezic
join:2004-05-06
Elizabeth, NJ

dubenezic

Member

Except in NJ

In exchange for a statewide franchise agreement, VZ has to wire the state.

The only exception is if after faithful negotiation with a property owner of an apartment/condo they cannot come to agreement, VZ can apply for a waiver.
dubenezic

dubenezic to indentured

Member

to indentured

Re: Horrible.

Spoken like a OWS protester.
Expand your moderator at work

jfleni
@bhn.net

jfleni to CrobertGauth

Anon

to CrobertGauth

Re: What About Comcast and Other Cable Companies

Time Warner got frightened by Google's KC project, and decided to efficiently wire NYC, but only for business.

As a "consumer", -- plutocrat-speak for sucker -- you are still hosed!
jfleni

jfleni to GPON4YOU

Anon

to GPON4YOU

Re: Get your GPON HERE

Only partially true. Cable is fixated on coaxial cable -- DOCSIS, QAM, DOCSIS+, and all the rest of the crazy alphabet soup, for yesterday's (and day before yesterday's) technology. The local cable company here just recently hung miles of thick, heavy coax everywhere, instead of modern plastic optical fiber (very efficient, light, fast and cheap for last-mile connections). It was obsolete the day they put it up.

Eventually, smaller telcos like Frontier and CenturyLink will put modern fiber everywhere to replace their copper ,or else go out of business, always a possibility with telco plutocrats. IF (a big IF) they survive, that will solve many problems, and take a giant step toward a nation-wide completely door-to-door fiber network. Cable will struggle to follow behind when that happens.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to Terabit

Member

to Terabit

Re: 9;

said by Terabit:

This is precisely why government needs to step in an own a wholesale FTTH network that anyone can use to deliver high-speed internet to Americans.

I lived under a government owned telco for 20+ years. It was not a nice experience.

Worst service ever.

Workers constantly on strike and sabotaging already aging infrastructure, rude customer service, arbitrary rate hikes "take it or leave it, we are a monopoly, fuck you," port blocking, using the hammer of Government to block private sector competitors, slowness to adopt new technologies, and just general incompetence and misery. We even paid paid $5/month to rent a telephone handset and you weren't allowed to use your own, just like the ma bell monopoly.

The day the monopoly expired and they got private sector competition from an irish wireless company is when service suddenly and dramatically improved.

They had to fight or die and they couldn't just sit and rest knowing their state owned monopoly jobs were secure.

I will never ever ever support telecom as a Government owned service. Ever.
fifty nine

fifty nine to Rich

Member

to Rich
said by Rich :

Funny you try to make the assumption that a nationwide fiber network will be similar to amtrak.

Why won't it be?

Why is it wrong to judge an entity by its past record?
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to fifty nine

Premium Member

to fifty nine
Haha, You just described Verizon!

Workers constantly on strike and company neglecting already aging infrastructure, rude customer service, arbitrary rate hikes "take it or leave it, the competition does this too, fuck you," port blocking, using the hammer of legal expenses to block competitors, slowness to adopt new technologies, and just general incompetence and misery.

When big business adopts the same bad habits of government-run services... what do we do then?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to EliteData

Premium Member

to EliteData

Fill in the subject field

How about filling in a subject field when starting a sub thread? You do this all the time and it messes up the forum software when you don't.
avgbowler
join:2005-08-10
Venice, CA

avgbowler to Terabit

Member

to Terabit

Re: 9;

No, maybe it is the fact that Verizon's unions make it too difficult to get things done. The LTE network is non union. After the last strike is when they said there will be no more expansion. I hate to say it, but I do not blame them with how the union acts.
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · next