O Canada! > Canadian > Bell Canada > [Internet] I used 13 Gigs in a day!? O_O

reply to Angelo

Re: [Internet] I used 13 Gigs in a day!? O_O

reply to Angelo
Maybe downloading same Linux distros all day long but Not P2P you can't. High school students ran a test of all ISPs from all over Ontario in December and only two ISPs made it above 250GB per moth. Many of these were Bell's new high speed packages. Bell was a the bottom of the list. On average Bell couldn't provide enough to do their school work with present caps, witch left these students to pressure their parents to switch.
"can" and "easily" are contradictory terms when it comes to Bell, actually is totally different matter.

Maybe it's all well and good with your Teksavvy account but consensus by students is: Bell is a RIP OFF!!

reply to koolgiy
Caps are a rip off--

The infrastructure for these systems was placed many years ago. These systems degrade very slowly and the capital costs to upgrade modify them is very low now, ( excess fiber optics are still doing nothing everywhere in triple quad lined optic cables) just a matter of moving your buns to get it done ie speed increase.. etc..

Therefore why are we paying for caps when we don't need to ?
Caps are like tips for waiters who only act snoby to you cause you are a client ?----- and don't care for what you need or ask for?

you can fool some of the people some of the time , but not everyone all the time ...

reply to koolgiy
now now rose colored glasses ? is that how you really see the customers? some of us do know a little something...

how much did the company lose in bad stock purchases these last few years ? and why are customers usually made to swallow that bill? is that just business practice ?

And my service has always been under 3 no matter how much I paid and for how long or how much I asked to be set to the contracted amount , ie

were did all the money go ? stock bonus for execs?
bonus for the company superstars? -

If a company is poorly managed it won't survive hard times

I have no quarrel with over worked , under staffed employees who get on these boards to defend their jobs

most of them are trying to do a good job -- but thats not what customers are seeing unfortunatley

I don't know how you relate stock market performance to capital cash flow. BCE didn't do any recent IPO's that I'm not aware of, did they?

Or did they add/sell more shares to the market to raise money? I don't think so...

I think you should take a few minutes and read the quarterly or annual financial reports and see how much cash BCE has on hand.

Shareholders get screwed when BCE's stock takes a tumble, not customers.
--
Disclaimer: If I express an opinion, it is my own opinion, not that of Bell or its related companies.

Wait a minute ... He's absolutely right.

Once a stock is initially sold and Bell received the capitalization from that stock, then the stock and the company, apart from dividends, have lives of their own.

The stock is, in theory, a reflection of the value of the company. If a stock tumbles in value, then the corporate value may change with regard to a takeover, but the bottom line business of the company is NOT directly impacted. It may impact potential customer's desire to do business with the company in the future, but there's no direct impact as a direct consequence of the decline in stock value.

All those things you mention eh Wut are effects of the business model that has made speculators (and that's all people after the initial value of the stock are is speculators) sell their stock, driving its value down.

This is not a chicken - egg scenario, but a clear cause and effect. Bad business management brings on bad stock, which is a reduction in the measure of the confidence of the business, and in turn that reduced confidence reduces customer's desire to buy product, which percolates back to the bad management.

So drop in stock value does indeed screw investors, not the company ... bad management screws the company.

Here's what I've interpreted from the links you provided in your post (which are very informational, btw, thanks):
- high customer satisfaction results in high stock market value
- low customers satisfaction results in low stock market value

What I didn't find in the links you provided, and I'm sure this is what we were talking about:
- vice-versa: how does low or high stock market value impact customer satisfaction

All of the PDF's talk about particular studies which prove that customer satisfaction is closely tied with shareholder value (ie: the reason why their shares are worth so much is because customers are happy), but doesn't seem to explore the possibility that customer satisfaction can be high yet share value low.

The articles also mention that certain companies should be/are excluded from the study (ie: companies that never interface with household customers as well as regulated industries such as a utility provider).

So, customer satisfaction impacts market value, but does the same hold true in the opposite direction? Does market value impact customer satisfaction?

I don't see that answered anywhere in the links you provided, but maybe you have others you can provide.
--
Disclaimer: If I express an opinion, it is my own opinion, not that of Bell or its related companies.

You've proven my point. There is no *direct* effect on the company. Don't get me wrong, there is a link, but at the same time, that is an indirect link through customer perception of the company.

That customer perception issue comes, in part, from the widespread mistaken belief that the company and its stock are tied together after the capitalization from the original sale of the stock. So, the belief is that if the stock is performing poorly for whatever reason, the company may be a) in poor fiscal shape, or b) heading for a possible take over, either of which could mean that any products purchased by the company may be unsupported a year from now, so why purchase from them?

If a stock tumbles in price, then it immediately hurts the value of my portfolio. It doesn't impact the value of the company or its production of goods and services immediately.

Let's take the current economic climate ... the value of stocks of virtually ALL companies is being driven by anything but the performance of the company. Does that mean that the company is unsuccessful or worth any less today than it was yesterday? No. What it means is that speculators are bailing fearing that they'll continue to lose money in the stock market.

Now, the value of stocks in the market declining means that the public (individuals, or business) purchasing may be reigned in as a consequence, causing impact to a companies. This isn't the direct cause-effect link, but a consequential link.