viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: now I understand!
said by Karl Bode  : quote:
Qwest-- No investment in future networks, more profit, activists are happy because no rich people are getting a better network than poor people; everybody's nice and equal with the same slow network.
Which activists would those be? The net neutrality activists. They want build out requirements for the telcos as they place infrastructure or provide new service (FiOS, Lightspeed, etc.) that would greatly hamper ROI. They call it 'redlining', 'cherrypicking', etc. They don't understand the business case for getting return as you go. Some of them would like to see the incumbent telcos go belly up. Just peruse this site. You'll find them. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : Which activists would those be? Rev. Al and Jessy. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to John T
quote:
Qwest-- No investment in future networks, more profit, activists are happy because no rich people are getting a better network than poor people; everybody's nice and equal with the same slow network.
Which activists would those be? |
|
John T
@northgrum.com
| reply to nasadude
And let's not forget:
Verizon-- tries to bring fiber to richest neighborhoods first, still not making a lot of money off of it, gets attacked by activists for not losing even more money by running fiber to poor neighborhoods (who won't subscribe in as great numbers) at the same time.
Qwest-- No investment in future networks, more profit, activists are happy because no rich people are getting a better network than poor people; everybody's nice and equal with the same slow network.
Seems to be that as long as running FTTH is causing such a big drain on Verizon's bottom line, that it's a bit of putting the cart before the horse to insist that they have to upgrade everywhere all at once, even in areas that would be even more unprofitable than their current expansions.
It's not like a company like Verizon would target rich neighborhoods first because they hate poor people. They're trying to make money. If FiOS were making money then, sure, argue for making them take on money-losing areas as well for fairness. It just seems to me that it might be a little bit too early to be insisting on that when FiOS isn't even making them money right now. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Verizon stock price up 10% last 2 yrs AT&T up 62% Qwest up 160% Enjoy it now the end is near. There is a reason at&t and Verizon didn't merge with Qwest and doesn't want to. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :Verizon: laying fiber, future proofing their network, bringing blazing speeds to customers - earnings down because they are spending money on fiber AT&T: slower investment, building the future network on the cheap, has to limit speeds because of lack of bandwidth - GREAT EARNINGS! investors happy! Qwest: pretty much no investment in future networks, plodding along in the 90s - TRIPLE PROFIT! investors really happy! So, to recap: build the network needed for the future, get slapped by investors; limit investment (or no investment), get rewarded. No wonder the U.S. is 15th and falling. The percentage changes in the last 2 yrs of the 3 companies stock prices appear to bear out your analysis:
Verizon(blue); AT&T(red); Qwest(green)
Verizon stock price up 10% last 2 yrs
AT&T up 62%
Qwest up 160%
Of course Qwest stock price initially was so low that a big percentage increase was much easier to do.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Verizon: laying fiber, future proofing their network, bringing blazing speeds to customers - earnings down because they are spending money on fiber
AT&T: slower investment, building the future network on the cheap, has to limit speeds because of lack of bandwidth - GREAT EARNINGS! investors happy!
Qwest: pretty much no investment in future networks, plodding along in the 90s - TRIPLE PROFIT! investors really happy!
So, to recap: build the network needed for the future, get slapped by investors; limit investment (or no investment), get rewarded.
No wonder the U.S. is 15th and falling. |
|
