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  !  |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
1 edit | 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 |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | reply to JSRoman
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. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to telcolackey
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 |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to telcolackey
said by telcolackey :Just because you are not first to deploy new technology...does not mean it is the successful business stratagy long term. Quote edited and still true...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to d_l
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 it is deeper than that. The real question is, can it be shown that the spike in stocks is caused by FTTH deployment? Verizon sells a lot more than just FFTH. There could easily be other factors in play. |
|
SkyBlue
join:2007-03-31
| reply to d_l
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 ! HEY DONT BITE THE MODS |
|
Yogibear227
@spcsdns.net
| reply to d_l
It doesn't account for the fact that Verizon NOT only has better Internet through FTTH all the way to the home.
Verizon as has a better wireles 3G WCDMA Network that the 2.5 Edge network from ATT/SBC.
Verizon may have a ways to go in customer service. But in the long haul that NETWORK will keep its customers happy for DECADES.
The Investors who recognize this will double,triple and maybe even quadruple their $$$ over the next 5 years alone.
Still going to invest in T & FTTN which always will need an upgrade & have problems.. Maintenance of copper is getting much more EXPENSIVE these days..EVDO is even cutting into users that used to use DSL or Satellite & converting them to being Verizon users.
When Verizon upgrades to 4G Wireless it will become even more apparent the mistake that ATT/SBC made in choosing the platform of technology for its future Network.
Uverse has a snowballs chance in HELL competing with FIOS or Cable.
The only thing they can say is that it is cheaper. Cheap doesn't make it in head to head competition. Rewards follow those who have a NETWORK worth jumping on to. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | 'Cheap doesn't make it in head to head competition.'
The Wii begs to differ. |
|
d_l
Barsoom
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
| reply to d_l
First of all, the obligatory FiOS is a technically far superior broadband connection method statement: Rah, Rah FiOS!
... but it is also obscenely expensive to implement. By Verizon's own stated goals, each FiOS subscriber will cost over $2571 to acquire by 2010 ($23 billion less ~$5 billion that would have been spent on copper line upgrades anyway divided by 7 million subscribers) »www22.verizon.com/about/communit···acts.pdf How many years of an internet FiOS subscription does it take for Verizon to recapture that investment so a customer can be profitable and not just a cash-flow source? Five? More than seven?
Note that Verizon has boosted their expected subscriber take rate in 2010 from less than 30% when the FiOS was first proposed to an expected 40% now. They may be able to achieve this take rate (the cost per subscriber goes up even higher if they don't), but it still means that they will be operating BOTH a FiOS network AND a copper network in the regions that the fiber is being deployed negating the savings of switching to an all fiber network. Plus the 2010 fiber deployment plan is only to pass 18/33ths of the homes Verizon serves. What will Verizon do with all that other non-fiber network? Sell it off? 
I think one of the assumptions investors might have had is that new FiOS subscribers will be net new broadband customers for Verizon, but that isn't the case. Net DSL adds have been plunging over the past year and a half due to the shrinking base of dial up customers willing to pay for DSL broadband. Over the past few quarters, it appears that not only is FiOS now cannibalizing this limited DSL growth, but by the end of the year could well be causing the DSL subscriber base to contract. Many DSL subscribers will see the need to eventually upgrade their speeds to the FiOS level, but will all of them? Will any of the remaining dial up customers flock to FiOS speeds? How will Verizon force the unwilling to covert?
Thus FiOS growth is now converting profitable DSL customers into a non-profitable, cash-flow only, FiOS customer base. |
|
