LD 50
join:2000-08-28
Milford, NH
clubs: | easy.
Any place they cannot cheaply lay fiber. Narrows it down a bit. |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
| No, its based on ROI(Return on investment). Say they make 80% profit in an area, they like that.
Another area only makes 35% profit, thier time and energy is better spent on the 80% areas for their bonuses and shareholders.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! |
|
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to LD 50
said by LD 50  :Any place they cannot cheaply lay fiber. Narrows it down a bit. Cheap is relative to the market (since deployment costs are similar). Do you mean areas they have competition?
It sounds like Ohio, Illinois, WI and MI are not on the market. From what I recall, MI was on the market at least 6 years ago...no one wanted to buy all of the scattered markets in whole. |
|
hjc71
join:2008-02-05
Broomfield, CO
| reply to gaforces
you understand that "cheaply" is a direct component of ROI, right? So to get a high ROI, such as your 80%, requires doing things cheaply. Therefore, "any place they cannot cheaply lay fiber" implies any place Verizon cannot get a high ROI will be sold. Don't blindly say "no" to someone without fully understanding what he said. In other words...what he said. |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
| It's not just laying fiber, the high density of subscribers in an area is how they can get those 80% profits.
It's not exactly cheap to lay fiber in NY City, but they are doing it. Wouldnt it be cheaper to lay fiber in Vermont, NH, and Maine? The reason they dont even want to try is because the density of potential subscribers is lower.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! |
|
