 Frankis chillingPremium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
1 edit | reply to openbox9
Re: Get used to it. said by openbox9:AT&T already made the decision...it is spending billions of dollars on network upgrades. Upgrades don't happen overnight. yes they do, most upgrades at most companies are done during overnights in order to minimize customer impact and outages. 
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | I stand sit corrected. |
|
| Since 2005 AT&T tripled their profits. Even if they add a couple billion per year more into their network, it doesn't come close to how much they skimped in previous years. The more money they put into it, the higher the quality of the network will become and the faster it will improve. |
|
| reply to Frank
not in this case, I want to see any company replace every T1 or T3 back haul to a fiber back haul over night. When this happens publish the contractors names who did the work, we could finally have this country wired with FTTH, we could surpass the Japanese with broadband penetration in the country.
Sorry, but the reason AT&T's network sucks so bad in congested markets is because they are servicing there cell sites with multiple T1's at 1.5 mb each, or with T3's max of 45 mb. When you have thousands of people trying to use a cell site, with a connection that's slower then a normal household connection with no overhead, your going ot have poor service. Now with fiber to these cell sites, they could run a Bandwidth on Demand type service, and if more bandwidth is needed the network equipment will auto boost the speeds causing these failures to not happen. Network seeing increased usage, it increases the bandwidth to prevent poor QOS for anyone on that cell site. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to sonicmerlin
The 2009 net income was actually 2.6 times the 2005 net income. What's more important to note is that from 2005 to 2009, capex increased 3 times from $5.576B to $16.595B. So, capex actually increased at a rate faster than net income. All of these figures are complicated by the M&A that happened during this time frame so it's not this black and white. |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | said by openbox9: capex increased 3 times from $5.576B to $16.595B. So, capex actually increased at a rate faster than net income. 3 x 0 is still zero. No sense looking at current investment levels as a percentage of prior years.
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Can you point to a year that AT&T, in any of its incarnations, invested $0? Otherwise, I have no idea what your point was supposed to be. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | said by openbox9:Can you point to a year that AT&T, in any of its incarnations, invested $0? Otherwise, I have no idea what your point was supposed to be. I'm trying to say that capex should be proportional to projected need, not proportional to a function of increase in revenues times last years underfunded levels.
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
| said by AVD:I'm trying to say that capex should be proportional to projected need, not proportional to a function of increase in revenues times last years underfunded levels. But it also has to be proportional to the available funds as well. Only the US gov't can keep spending and borrowing without regard to the means available.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by AVD:I'm trying to say that capex should be proportional to projected need, not proportional to a function of increase in revenues times last years underfunded levels. But it also has to be proportional to the available funds as well. Only the US gov't can keep spending and borrowing without regard to the means available. According to what I read here, ATT has been neglecting their capex in order to boost profits. Is this understanding incorrect?
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
|
|
1 edit | No. But I can understand your thinking if you just base all your info on AT&T's practices just from what is discussed at BBR. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to AVD
Of course. If I implied otherwise, I apologize. |
|
