| reply to travelguy
Re: Why is it Even if he didn't say that FiOS would be a total failure, he still discounted it.
FiOS and U-Verse have been putting a dent in cable growth, if the two services were more widely available I'm sure some Cablecos would be hemorrhaging subscribers. |
|
| You have to understand how these guys think and who their audience is - they could care less about the technology or consumer demand. To a great extent, they are technology neutral. All he's saying is that if you have one dollar to invest today and you have a choice of Verizon, AT&T or Qwest, you'd earn the least amount with Verizon.
His position is that the cable companies were stupid to invest so much in upgrading their plant to digital, but since they did (water under the bridge), it makes more sense for them to be the last mile pipe that delivers video, voice and internet than it does for someone like Verizon to create another last mile pipe and compete. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | To a great extent, they are technology neutral. Not really when it comes to Moffett, who tends to be very positioned for or against particular technologies based on what kind and volume of stock his bosses are trying to move.
You've not seen Moffett say much in recent months about how the increasingly falling costs of fiber hardware and the development of bendable fiber (which helps speed up MDU installs) is greatly lowering Verizon's investment costs, or how successful they've been at signing up customers, how returns have exceeded expectations, etc.
As somebody who watched the news ten hours a day, I can truly say Moffett's traditionally been a pretty pro-cable guy, finding even the most inane cable announcement something to crow about.His position is that the cable companies were stupid to invest so much in upgrading their plant And he really likes Qwest's plan of sitting on their hands and just milking outdated copper, consumers, the future, technology, and everything else but stock price be damned. |
|
