MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: |  Good
Maybe investors will finally stop whining about the project I would like fios to my house sooner.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Here's a company that had the vision and balls to keep the stockholders a bay long enough to show what that vision can produce.
Verizon's stock is only going up from here....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
d_l
Barsoom
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
| This story is misleading
Two years later, AT&T is still a far better investment than Verizon.
Don't quit your day job to become a stock analyst, Karl Bode  !  |
|
eric89074
join:2004-08-13
Henderson, NV
| reply to MysticGogeta
Re: Good
The investors are finally getting it. Verizon is implementing a technology that will carry TV and the internet to their customer's home for the next 50 years while cable companies and AT&T are just using stopgaps. If they continue to show patience with Verizon they will be rewarded with even higher stock prices. |
|
madrhino
join:2004-07-03 | Good.Now hire some more customer service people(and train them).
--
Get Verizon FIOS,The Anti-DIOS |
|
DownTheShore
Maddie Knows Poopie
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs: | reply to MysticGogeta
If they'd fiber-up the multi-dwelling units they'd get more customers and make more money... 
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
1 edit | reply to d_l
Re: This story is misleading
said by d_l :Two years later, AT&T is still a far better investment than Verizon. [att=1] Don't quit your day job to become a stock analyst, Karl Bode ! I think you need to blame Businessweek not Karl.
IMO, Vz is the better investment going forward versus AT & T. While AT&T is currently deploying what cable already provides, VZ is providing a product which betters cable in internet speeds and is equal if not better in video. Add wireless and you are bulletproof. If only they could get their billing straight.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  reply to d_l
said by d_l :Two years later, AT&T is still a far better investment than Verizon. Don't quit your day job to become a stock analyst, Karl Bode ! Of course, the news item and Karl are correct if you just compare the last 6 months. How things work out in the long term is still unknown.
Last 6 months only
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| I agree... both are valid posts.
If I would have invested 2 years ago... AT&T would have been better.
If I would have invested 6 months ago, Verzon would have been better.
Future = ?
Long term, Verizon's FiOS will most likely do better than Uverse for long term ROI (less $$$ to support, eventually single platform (all fiber). Currently, Verizon hurts for ROI, as its supporting both FTTH and POTS, and costing $$$$$ to buildout.
Uverse costs a lot less to buildout, can buildout quickly, but doesn't have the long term upgrade path. In say 5 years, where HD will be the norm, AT&T may find itself in a bad spot if it can not provide bandwidth. HSI, I suspect is being capped for that very reason. Deploying either new VRADS (shorter loop) and/or pair bonding will be the minimum required to support long(er) term buildout.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
KrazyDawg
join:2001-02-07
Vallejo, CA
clubs: | Clueless Investors
Investors only know how to invest money to make money failing to research current and future technology. They only look at the cost of things and deem it as "unprofitable." You don't make money without taking risks. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | reply to JSRoman
Re: This story is misleading
Just because you are first to deploy new technology (at an early adopter premium) does not mean it is the successful business stratagy long term. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| reply to en102
Uverse could wait while VZ pays for all the FTTx development and drives the optical component cost down with volume. I don't think AT&T will strand capital investments with Uverse and can revisit FTTx when there is REAL need vs. marketing and perception.
Sometimes being a close second on technology is a smarter business choice then a technology leader in an unproven territory
. |
|
Quiglag
God is Love
Premium
join:2004-09-19
Ontario, CA
 ·SharkSpace
| reply to d_l
Not only that, but AT&T has 3 times more stock shares then Verizon does. Going by stock prices alone does not work.
--
\o/ My Website | Check Out My Gallery |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | reply to TKJunkMail
The problem is it should have compared them from when they started their big push. But the point of this story wasn't meant to make ATT's FTTN effort look good. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | reply to KrazyDawg
Re: Clueless Investors
IOW: Stock price is not always a good indicator of a successful business strategy. YMMV |
|
EverAndAnon
@verizon.net
| FiOS-TV
As far as FiOS-TV goes, the only reason I don't have it yet is my anticipation of constant billing errors due to having more than one product from Vz--I just don't want the hassle. Once they get their act cleaned up (if ever) then I'll certainly want to get it... but I can wait. FiOS-TV's footprint certainly isn't anywhere near as large as "cable TV's" (yet), but in 5 years? who knows?
The point is, however things stand now, in a couple years it could all change dramatically; hence, as with all stock market investments, it's a crap-shoot. At this point, I'd bet on Vz--they're the ones with the growth potential. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to telcolackey
Re: This story is misleading
I tend to agree...cost of fiber deployment (network gear, fiber itself, and any 'new' technologies surrounding FTTH (MOCA, BPON/GPON, etc) should come down.
Cost of labor might be more, however, hopefully AT&T will use Verizon's deployment (and their own Uverse deployment with FTTN and the few FTTH) as learning exercises and methods of keeping the cost down.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T U-Verse
| Huh?
The value of Verizon stock:
Closed at $39.41 7-Jan-05
Closed at $37.24 29-Dec-06
Closed at 37.38 5-Jan-07
Closed at 44.28 28-Sep-07
The value of AT&T stock:
Closed at $25.08 7-Jan-05
Closed at $35.75 29-Dec-06
Closed at $33.96 5-Jan-07
Closed at $42.31 28-Sep-07
What the hell are they talking about? Does anybody see this huge gain, because I don't. Looks to me like Verizon has gained a little in stock price but AT&T appears to have gained even more over the periods they are quoting.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| They did the oldest trick in snookering investors. They picked the timeframe which showed them the best results for their argument. The timeframe was set at 6 months ago when AT&T was at a relative high. So the gain for T has been lower than the gain for VZ which had been greater.
But most other timeframes show AT&T as outperforming VZ. |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | Stock vs business
Just because a stock is high or low does not mean the business is doing good. But i do think vzw will do good in the long run. |
|
