fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Gwailo
Re: Wonder Which One is Really Serious? said by Gwailo:It would appear one of the companies below is really serious about fiber ... From the Verizon press release: "In fact, the response to our 100 percent fiber-optic suite of services continues to be so positive ....... SBC also got a state franchise recently. But just Thursday SBC said this (reported on BBR): SBC will be able to generate enough free cash flow to cover the additional capital expenses next year related to the rollout of its fiber network Project Lightspeed..." Guess which one! Oh goodie! A guessing game. Hmmm.. I bet my money on SBC. Verizon is a big fat fake! (But what else is new. Many people will soon remember the beast that Verizon and Telco in general is)
You are trying to associate SBC's reduction in work force as not being serious. Rather, reduction of work force is a positive sign. It's shows that SBC is making sure there is going to be enough money to build their project all the wya through. SBC is trying to make sure they aren't too 'in-the-hole' going out the door and is choosing to be more, gasp, "convertative" about their roll-out.
I know this doesn't play well into a group that wants all the latest technology, and wants it now, and makes it loud and clear that they will pay only the least amout for it. SBC isn't no dummy!
Now, as for the Verizon project and just "how serious they are" about fiber. I don't think I need to say much. I will let the news articles speak for themselves.
See the following:
»Verizon has exit clause in Woburn deal
and the actual story at:
»www.boston.com/business/technolo···rn_deal/
"Verizon Communications Inc. plans to start signing up customers for its cable TV service in Woburn early next year, but a clause in its franchise agreement with the city could allow it to disconnect all those customers in 2009.
Through language in its contract with Woburn, Verizon has three years to decide whether or not it has enough subscribers to make the service in Woburn financially viable. If it decides that's not the case, Verizon could pull the plug on the service with only 90 days' notice to the city and its customers there." And this part too, I like this quote:
Verizon says that it is unlikely to need to use the exit loophole because it expects its service to be popular. How can Verizon "expect" that it's service will be popular when they want a ditch clause in their agreement? Doens't sound like they are too sure of themselves. Sounds to me, when the day is over, that THE KNOW they are building an expensive beast that will likely not return on their investment as they really hope. I am sure they also know that Comcast and the others will compete heavily in the Fiber over build areas. Verizon will be heavily cash strapped and won't be able to play with cable who's system is already well paid for and generating cash revenues.
Maybe this is also why SBC is reducing it's work force to free up cash. |
|
|
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | said by fiberguy:You are trying to associate SBC's reduction in work force as not being serious. Rather, reduction of work force is a positive sign. SBC firing thousands of workers is not a positive sign. Neither is their decision to move forward with dsl over copper for video. I hope they know what they're doing because the dsl video plan is just stupid.
--
no sig |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Oh I agree that Video over DSL is like trying to feel a neighborhood's water supply through a 1" pvc pipe. It's just not going to happen.
However, you are relating the 10,000 layoffs as not a "positive sign" why? Because people are loosing their jobs? Layoffs in the corporate world are common when cash is needed. Sometimes you have to reduce your workforce in order to move forward and grow. Those jobs, though cut now, will eventually come back. What you often do hear about too is that many of the 10,000 layoffs will come from attrition from people leaving anyway, or offering of early rtirements.
If these 10,000 jobs were $22,000 a year earners (lets assume) the cost savings in payrole alone is 220 million a year. That doesn't count the cost for benefits, taxes and other costs associated with employing someone. It's a considerable amount of cash. (And this is on the low end)
Another thing you may not be looking at is that investors LOVE to see reductions in payrole expenses. This also stirs cash flow too.
This, in my opinion, is a VERY positve move by the company. Many industry and money people, I am sure, would agree. Just look at any major company that is about to sell itself. You will ALWAYS see them let people go in order to make the numbers look better in order to attract a better price. |
|
cdobol
join:2002-02-12
Denville, NJ | reply to fiberguy
I guess cable companies do generate cash, but they must burn it even faster. Although articles have been written that FIOSTV will be gone in a few years because investors may not be patient enough to see the return on investment and they will have to 'dump' the project.
Cablevision net income Nov. 2004 (676,092)
Comcast net income Dec. 2004 970,000
Verizon net income Dec 2004 7,831,000 |
|
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:How can Verizon "expect" that it's service will be popular when they want a ditch clause in their agreement? Doens't sound like they are too sure of themselves. If you have dealt with contracts in large corporations, Verizon's seeming dual personality makes a lot of sense. Corporate lawyers exist to mitigate risk. And the fact that a clause exists that leaves Verizon an out means nothing except that they have lawyers on staff that know what they are doing. Good corporate lawyers always think about all eventualities, no matter how unlikely, and make sure the contract allows for them. An out clause, therefore, shows nothing about Verizon's intentions.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I understand what you are saying, however, when you want the public's confidence in something, this is not a good thing.
The original comment was about "who was serious here, VZ or SBC"...
My point is that people are flocking to Verizon, the company that chose to lay some fiber, as gods and perfect saints in the world of the triple play. I think people are blinded by that and overlook the years of B.S. that the telephone comapnies have spewed on the consumer.
More people are giving a free pass to VZ simply because of the fiber... |
|
| said by fiberguy:My point is that people are flocking to Verizon, the company that chose to lay some fiber, as gods and perfect saints in the world of the triple play. I think people are blinded by that and overlook the years of B.S. that the telephone comapnies have spewed on the consumer. Well I am not in that category.
The way I read that boston.com news story, Verizon wouldn't be tearing up the fiber on a pull out. It would only affect TV and not voice or internet access. For better or worse the deal they gave Woburn is the same exact deal they gave every city they applied to for TV franchises. If the cities are signing these deals, either they don't care about their constituents or they are pretty sure enough people will sign up to have Verizon not needing the escape clause. And the franchise agreement isn't exclusive - meaning that the cable companies will still be doing business as a competitor. My take is that the cities don't see that clause worth fighting over.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
