carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
| reply to RideRed
Re: Not this idiot again...YES Captain Obvious
Dear Squid and other in-the-dark invertabrae:
It is clearly evident you never came close to working in a real-time stock exchange environment where even a quarter second can mean huge profits or losses. Time is MONEY - remember that old saying??
Here is one for you - if you have a 10Gbps line into your house you can download a 90 Minute Video (about one Gigabyte in storage) in less than a second to your DVD.
Think of the possibilities just for video = Blockbuster becomes an online service - no bricks and mortar needed any more. Studios can download movies to you the day they open. Other video services get downloaded to you in less than seconds.
ALL OF YOU - USE YOUR MIND - think of the NEW applications that can be done just in video when you have 10Gbps connectivity. It's not the applications today - it is what will be available 5 - 10 years from now.
I cannot believe that many of you are are so resistant to moving forward. Are you that brainwashed by some PR person saying that you don't need speed? What sheep.
I remember having an argument with an Ameritech Exec who did not want to put fiber to the Chicago 911 Center back in its planning phases in 1993. He said you can stick with copper and I said you will obsolete it before it opens in 1995. We won that argument and they put in fiber.
Now everyone takes credit that it is connected to central offices by fiber and is still rated the number one center by the Homeland Security Agency so don't tell me about not "needing the speed" today. Look forward.
Maybe another saying for you Squid is - Those that sit and cannot create, criticize those that do.
Instead of saying this guy doesn't know what he's talking about start asking yourself why are you not thinking about Gigabit speeds to both business and residential subscribers?
I don't have all the answers - I'm not supposed to. I'm supposed to get you off your chairs to start thinking and creating. Based on Squid griping at least I have his attention which is maybe all he has to offer. |
|
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
| And Squid...
Your abrasive comments of-
"Of course in that case we all saw whoever would challenge "Northwestern's" (LOL, a part timer) Carlini will just be assailed as being jealous and never having finished a degree rather than actually challenging the counter points with more of his brilliant logic...."
remind me that weren't you supposed to publish your "resume of great and distinguished accomplishments" for all of us to review and be in awe of?
As I said in an earlier article about network infrastructure - Building a Lionel train layout in your basement doesn't qualify you to be the Infrastructure Engineer for the Burlington.
Happy New Year Squid. |
|
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
| I guess Squid was right. You never bother to address the counterpoints, but rather say anyone who disagrees are sheep, brainwashed, must not have a degree or other such fallacious arguments of yours. The sheep are those who instantly jump on the bash the industry gimmie my free stuff yesterday let the CEOs figure out how to do it bandwagon without considering why it isn't occurring and how these pipedreams of yours could occur.
Carlini, please explain to us where the multi-billions for these not yet here applications would come from and more importantly the financial analysis showing how long it would take for a company like AT&T to recoup their investment. And from years of profits isn't an answer...the earnings reports of these companies are public record so certainly you can support an affordability argument should you wish to make one. It's your burden to show us all why an investor would want to sink the money into this with no proof of demand, no proof that there would be a reasonably quick return on this massive investment, no nothing whatsoever other than the rabblerousing title.
It's nice that you put out these meaningless headlines like "we're getting ripped off" but you offer ZERO in the way of realistic solutions or even a proper analysis of the situation.
The rest of your statement is simple conjecture.
Please provide your studies and statistics showing there is an imminent demand by consumers for these instant movie downloads and how industry roadblocks like DRM would play into these new market forces. Certainly your research would include how new bandwidth consolidating technologies would mitigate the issues like switched digital and more advanced compression techniques.
But alas, my guess is that you haven't done any. But that is just a guess based on your past conjecture and sorry writings like the amusing internet speedometer hogwash.
Another poster was asked if he or she had a very fast computer and I'll ask you that same question. Do you have a brand new quad core machine with the fastest and biggest of everything available? Do you buy the most advanced hardware as soon as it's available? My lucky guess would be not and the next question would be why not? Another lucky guess would say because it costs too much for the return on the investment. You don't want to spend the money now even though there would be a need for it in the future yet you expect these companies, their investors and customers to make the investment you aren't willing to. Pretty hypocritical in my opinion.
While on that note, your examples of what we would all be using this multi-billion dollar infrastructure for are piss poor. I would have expected better examples from you. You aren't going to sell anyone on this phantom need, especially those with the money, with promises of movies in an instant.
We already have that; it's called On Demand yet Blockbuster is still alive and kicking.
Crap, I can make a better argument for you...no local storage or processing period. All applications run remotely. We all just have screen a la GoToMyPC...no one needs to buy expensive computers every few years, just a monitor, mouse and keyboard. Something like that would ultimately cost quite a bit of bandwidth when combined with other remote sourced content like HD streaming. But even then, it would take years of study to show that even if the bandwidth was available and providers made this content available, that people would buy it.
We Sheep? No.
We Brainwashed? No.
We more thought out than you. Obviously, yes.
Good day sir. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
1 edit | said by RideRed  :I guess Squid was right. You never bother to address the counterpoints, but rather say anyone who disagrees are sheep, brainwashed, must not have a degree or other such fallacious arguments of yours. Don't forget in-the-dark invertebrates.
The lack of reason in his rants are disturbing to say the least and I was absolutely correct in my prediction that he would immediately resort to ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the counterpoints to his flawed logic. How dare anyone question The Great Calini?!?
I would have expected more from someone bragging about their degrees and being an adjunct professor from Northwestern. The only thing he has proved is his degrees are worth little more than the paper they're printed on and are an unreliable barometer of intelligence. These periodic rants of his are of the 10th grade social studies variety; a complete absence of scientific method which lead to his questionable conclusions (or in this case none at all).
This supports the notion by some, like myself, that the quality of education in our institutions of higher learning is on the decline, even in those institutions once thought of as excellent.
If Calini and his COMPLETE lack of decorum are any indicator as to the quality of instruction at Northwestern, it's certainly a sad state of affairs at NW.
He would be better off thinking a bit more and typing a lot less. |
|
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
| reply to RideRed
RideRed
It's MY burden? It is obvious that you have absolutely no clue of network engineering, the time it takes to revamp an outdated network or how you go about upgrading a large network infrastructure. It's a long-term strategy, a huge investment and it does not fit into a timeframe defined by a quarterly report.
It is not a 90 day process. Nor is it something that you change out and then have to change it out again in five or ten years.
Having said all that, if you do commit to upgrading the network which is a multi-billion dollar endeavor, you think you would want to do it once and be done with it, rather than come up with some hybrid approach which does not yield high enough speeds today let alone what will be needed in ten years (maybe five).
Why do you think the phone companies want to squeeze another couple of years out of what is in the ground now? To your argument - short-term profits to please the stockholders.
It doesn't cost them anything compared to trenching up the ground and laying fiber (that is HUGE capital investment).
The problem is that copper is no comparison to fiber and if you, as well as all the investors that you purport to know intimately, were focused on looking long-term and not quarterly reports, you would select fiber for the next 50 years not copper or a copper/fiber hybrid. As THAT is the most cost-effective approach IF you are looking long-term and huge return on investment.
Unfortunately, focusing on short-term profits instead of looking long-term is the kiss of death in this industry.
Ask the 60+ ILEC companies that went bankrupt in the early 2000s because they thought this was a quick buck industry that needed minimal capital investment. (And yes I HAVE the list if you want it.)
If investors are as astute as you say they are, then they should realize that this is "the game" with this type of industry. Many have gone into ILECs thinking that there are huge sums of money to be made quickly and without large capital investments.
As for the wisdom of CEOs and short-term profits, I guess that is the overriding culture in the US. Maybe you should ask Ford (a short-term thinking US company based on your overall assumption of US companies) why they are turning to Toyota (a long-term thinking company) to try and bail them out. (I'm not going to go into the differences of long-term vs. short-term strategic management or cultural differences - go read some books)
As for Network Speedometers, funny you should mention that. I just got an EMail on that very subject on 12/27/2006:
James,
SBC/AT&T just sold another friend up to 3000 kps DSL service ( $24.99 a month).
His home is located at least 4 copper wire miles from the Central Office. I speed tested his download and he can only get 768kps ( $14.99 a month ). Do you think they are going
to call him and advise him of that ( of course not ). Most consumers don't realize that
SBC/AT&T is taking an extra $120.00 a year out of their pockets. Maybe a merger
conditions should be that they refund or change everyone DSL plan to what they can actually receive on the copper wires.
Regards,
Jerry Downing
So RideRed - who is slinging hogwash?? There is the perfect example that you wanted. Satisfied? Probably not.
Maybe you and your flock are just a lost cause. Maybe I am fighting a losing battle trying to make you see the light. You are probably paying the extra $120 a month for your turbo DSL that isn't being delivered.
And YOU can come up with the exhaustive studies and tell me that if the incumbents think they have the "best solution" then why are they mounting all these lawsuits and legislative lobbying to keep competitors out that are looking to do FTTP infrastructures?
Based on your own arguments, if the incumbents have the best solution and no one is concerned about high speed access because of "return on investments", they would not be so concerned about others coming up with a more advanced infrastructure that would obsolete theirs.
Ask the incumbents why they need to spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying efforts to create restrictive legislation if they were not concerned about endeavors like Project Utopia or others providing the proof-of-concept that you and others say is not out there. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| Exactly!
Thanks for pointing out that network investment is a SUNK cost and is recapped over the lifetime of the network, which according to the squid, is infinite for AT&T.
Just because At&t dragged its feet through the 90's (when they should have been considering these upgrades) they have now found themselves in a position where the investment is too great for them to manage on their current cash flows.
What is At&t's solution? Amalgamate and make it so that no company ever could sink that kind of capital into the upgrade and bring down the consumers who are stuck on their lousy service, which will be strongly tied to the new economy of the future, with it. |
|
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
| reply to squid7
SQUID
So where is your resume of great accomplishments that we all can critique? We are all still waiting.
If all you have are personal attacks to write about, you are in pretty sad shape.
Also read my response about Network Speedometers. Lame idea? People are getting ripped off for service that they are not getting. What is your solution? |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
| reply to carlini7
A billion is more than a millon.
Tens of millions for lobbying is NOTHING compared to the tens of BILLIONS a multi-gigabit build out would cost and you still have yet to show where those billions would come from or how other mitigating technologies would impact such a deployment.
As far as them considering it, look at the news. The majors are all deploying fiber, cable already has deployed and AT&T is rethinking their VDSL project.
And fine, rather than whine about copper and click our heals hoping that AT&T can crap 10's of billions for a fiber build out, how about writing an article about "deploy or get the F out of the way" assailing telcos and cable operators who sue to stop competitors while they refuse to deploy on their own or assail Verizon's PA billion dollar rip off.
But to piss and moan that the industry isn't moving fast enough while you give no plan of your own of how they could possibly move faster is hypocritical.
Investors and customers are the ones paying the bill genius, not you. Verizon answers to their INVESTOR-OWNERSHIP, not you. The investors have a reasonable expectation to get returns on their investments and even if short-sighted are reasonable in questioning the expense and risk of an accelerated fiber deployment.
Calini, just because you can balance our own checkbook or buy a car doesn't mean you can create budgets for Verizon.
As a holder of a degree in Finance (emphasizing in Capital Budgeting) from CSLB and an advanced degree in Economics from University of California, Irvine, I would admit my knowledge of fiber network topology is lacking, but not nearly as much as yours is in business economics.
Having worked on the accounting side of MASSIVE capital intensive projects for Boeing, Raytheon and Textron I have plenty of experience to know that these capital expenses are hugely burdensome and risky even if the future of the company may hang in the balance. One look at Sonic Cruiser or A380 freightliner will show you how bad the consequences are if you screw up predicting what people want a decade in the future.
The point is that the industry majors ARE deploying, some faster than others but great caution must be taken by these companies or they would face certain bankruptcy.
--
So-called Prof. James Carlini is like a investment advisor who tells you the answer is "buy low, sell high". Well duh, how do we do that? There is never an answer to that one. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
2 edits | reply to carlini7
said by carlini7 :SQUID So where is your resume of great accomplishments that we all can critique? We are all still waiting. If all you have are personal attacks to write about, you are in pretty sad shape. Also read my response about Network Speedometers. Lame idea? People are getting ripped off for service that they are not getting. What is your solution? BS Finance and Capital Budgeting - California State University of Long Beach
MA Economics - University of California, Irvine
I've done a lot of work in and often managed finance planning and resource management departments for large capital projects for companies like Boeing who's capital investment spending FAR outstrips Verizon's many times over. I've witnessed first hand (Sonic Cruiser) the massive costs of a bad prediction of future demand. At Beoing we also concerned ourselves with the failure of the A380 freighter project and the consequences to Airbus (which are in the billions in case you haven't read). Meanwhile, unlike you I don't tout myself to be an 'expert' in Capital Budgeting, I don't write article and have blogs as if my capital budget expertise is of any importance. You pass yourself off as an expert when you are obviously not.
We're still waiting for you to come up with the capital budget plan for AT&T's fiber deployment.
How much is it going to cost them?
Exactly where is the money to come from?
What are the liabilities for taking on that project?
What are the possible consequences for taking on that project?
What is the expected ROI for that project?
Certainly you would have the answers to these questions.
As far as the beyond lame internet speedometer...DSLR hosts a crap load. Go to www.speedtest.net if you want to see what your speed is.
Providers aren't ripping anyone off, it is plain in ALL of their advertising that speeds are not guaranteed and last time I checked unhappy campers are free to CANCEL their service. Along with capital budgeting you haven't studied marketing or contract law. It's a very simple solution. If you want an SLA PAY FOR IT. Certainly in your travels you've heard of service level agreements, I have one, and pay extra to have it. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp.
Between the internet speedometer and this latest rant on why the industry isn't jumping in with both feet you have shown your ignorance in business finance.
These companies don't sh!t money. They can't afford to provide 5Mb service with an SLA for $30/mo PERIOD just as they can't cut a check today for $15 billion for a FTTP deployment.
Stick to what you know and business finance ain't it. You simply talk out your ass criticizing these companies when you have zero clue what is involved in these capital projects. Just because you know what router should go where doesn't give you the expertise to figure out how to pay for it.
--
So-called Prof. James Carlini is like a investment advisor who tells you the answer is "buy low, sell high". Well duh, how do we do that? There is never an answer to that one. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
| reply to backness
said by backness :Exactly! Thanks for pointing out that network investment is a SUNK cost and is recapped over the lifetime of the network, which according to the squid, is infinite for AT&T. Just because At&t dragged its feet through the 90's (when they should have been considering these upgrades) they have now found themselves in a position where the investment is too great for them to manage on their current cash flows. What is At&t's solution? Amalgamate and make it so that no company ever could sink that kind of capital into the upgrade and bring down the consumers who are stuck on their lousy service, which will be strongly tied to the new economy of the future, with it. What Calini isn't answering is where is the money going to come from TODAY. Perhaps at some time in the future AT&T will have recouped their investment but the industry is volatile and we saw from dark fiber deployments in the late 90's that not all companies can afford wait around for their return.
If you see a house for $400,000 that is worth a million (so obviously you can flip it), but don't have the $400,000 the point is moot. That is unless you can put together a plan and CONVINCE INVESTORS to loan you the $400,000. Calini has failed thus far to provide even the hint of such a plan.
It's not enough to want near unlimited throughput or to say that AT&T will get their money back at some point in the future.
Investors and company management want to know what is going to happen BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.
Baking a pie without filling doesn't a pie make and Calini brining this up, criticizing the incumbants while obviously not thinking things though is no different.
--
So-called Prof. James Carlini is like a investment advisor who tells you the answer is "buy low, sell high". Well duh, how do we do that? There is never an answer to that one. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
4 edits | reply to carlini7
said by carlini7 :Maybe you and your flock are just a lost cause. Maybe I am fighting a losing battle trying to make you see the light. You are probably paying the extra $120 a month for your turbo DSL that isn't being delivered. Holy crap!
Just goes to show that you don't bother listening to anyone but yourself (including your ISP service agreements). You read the first sentence then fire off another illogical rant.
RideRed has FiOS genius. RideRed has the very FTTH service you're pining for.
As for me, at home I have a similar service via Cox. At my office in Huntington Beach I skipped over FiOS and have Covad Wireless and am very content with it (and aware of the terms of my contract).
Meanwhile you freely admit that such a deployment is a massive undertaking (but obviously don't understand just how massive and risky), in planning, expense and execution yet as AT&T deploys bridding measures like fiber to the node and VDSL while they consider last feet FTTP and as Verizon and other incumbants deploy FTTP you bitch that it's not happening fast enough. You just like listening to yourself and expect everyone to blindly agree with you and anyone who doesn't MUST be an uneducated idiot.
Jeez, you really need to calm down. You are just embarrassing yourself.
--
So-called Prof. James Carlini is like a investment advisor who tells you the answer is "buy low, sell high". Well duh, how do we do that? There is never an answer to that one. |
|
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
| reply to squid7
SQUID
Ohhhh,,,I'm impressed. NOT. You have no idea about network infrastructure and sunken capital costs. Read the previous post before yours. You should understand it if you have those degrees.
I am surprised you did not volunteer what Backness said if you are so astute at financing and capital budgeting. It would be safe to say - You don't know the industry.
If I were you, I'd ask for your money back on your degrees because they did not teach you much. They should have taught you that competitive forces can obsolete traditional business models and in technology that can happen very quickly.
That being the case - explain why tens of millions of dollars are spent on lobbying to restrict competition that will obsolete the current network infrastructure. All of those millions could be put to upgrade infrastructure if they were so sure that what they have inplace is adequate.
Talk about skirting the issues - you did not answer my questions. If you are a budgeting genius all of a sudden, where are all of your answers?
And for something simple as a Network Speedometer which was just offered as an idea - you dismiss it but you fail to see the average Joe getting ripped off on service he is not getting, but paying for. I guess a Masters Degree doesn't give you the common sense to figure a consumer problem out.
Go back to playing with your Lionel train. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
2 edits | It wouldn't matter if Brian Roberts came on here disagreeing with you. You would read the first sentence, click reply and fire up another rant. I'm not surprised given that you railed on RideRed as paying for overpriced DSL (when he mentioned more than once he has FTTH with FiOS) and that you can't even read simple provider-subscriber service agreements.
As for your questions that I've already answered on multiple occasions, I'll state those answers again. Perhaps this time you'll make it past the first sentence before clicking that reply button.
There is more than one competitive angle Verizon and other's take. On one hand Verizon is deploying competitive services while on the other they do what they can to slow other competitors. Duh, this is nothing new and there will NEVER be a time where competing on product merit is the only method of competition. To think there will be is living outside reality.
As such, while Verizon, AT&T and cable operators spend millions and sometimes billions on infrastructure improvements (Comcast is dropping nearly $100M in the Bay Area alone) other units of these companies look to slow their competitors and preserve their market position through lobbying efforts.
If you want to criticize their marketing efforts, by all means I would agree with that but to think it will change anything is ludicrous. I would wholly support and positively comment on the hypocrisy of providers like AT&T who on occasion refuse to deploy while in the next breath sue the muni to stop its own deployment. But that wasn't the focus of this latest article of yours. If it had been, you wouldn't be laughed at.
Again with the damn speedometer, you didn't get it then and you didn't get it now.
What part of "speeds are not guaranteed are you not getting"? No where in these budget providers service agreements that CUSTOMERS freely agree to is any guarantee of minimum speed (except for AT&T DSL) or fitness of use.
Customers are free to enter into that agreement or not. If they must have an SLA they can get one, but it costs more because it costs far more to provide.
Certainly you, being a self-proclaimed network topology expert understand that in order to sell multi-megabit service you have to sell more connections than you can provide concurrent service for. To deny that will simply end the discussion here and now as you will officially tag yourself as full of crap.
Certainly you don't expect ISP's to only sell as many connections as they can support if 100% are wide open. If so, you should produce an article with the accounting showing how that would be possible.
Shared bandwidth is the cornerstone of budget providers. Bandwidth sharing which on occasion can result in speeds below advertised maximum is how a provider like Comcast or Cox can provide 12-15 or even 30 Mb service for $50/mo.
Go price a 30Mb connection with an SLA quoting up time and minimum speeds and let me know what you come up with. You didn't the last time the speedometer was brought up and you won't now.
Lionel train? Yeah, you tried that one already and like you aren't an industry expert, you apparently aren't a good joke writer either.
I'm done wasting time on you. You obviously don't get it and will continue to generate these meaningless rants of yours. However since I find you very amusing I will continue to read, comment and laugh at them so you win in the end. I've already shown how your logic is flawed and your conconclusions questionable.
Enjoy your day.
--
So-called Prof. James Carlini is like a investment advisor who tells you the answer is "buy low, sell high". Well duh, how do we do that? There is never an answer to that one. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
4 edits | reply to carlini7
Trying to have a logical discussion with you is like talking to the dog.
A comment on your article said it in just a few sentences what I've been trying to get around in dozens.
»wistechnology.com/article.php?id···ent56802
said by Hollowpoint, in part :
Or you could look at Verizon's example- 20 billion for it's FTTH project, and that's not a buildout to all customers nor is it offering anywhere near the speeds you propose. If it fails, the project could very well sink Verizon. Paying off 20 billion in debt with $50/month customers is far from a sure bet and as such investors are nervous about the project.
Exactamundo. My point in all of this to you Carlini, is show me and the investors how paying off this estimated $20 billion in debt with $50/mo subscribers is a sure bet given that the entire company is being put at risk in the effort. Verizon leadership seems to think the risk is worth it and investors who has the money riding on this guess are worried as well they should be. And you are in no position to be critical of that concern. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
3 edits | Even more amusing...you take the same ad hominem tactics with that poster as you did, me, RideRed and countless others.
»wistechnology.com/article.php?id···ent57508
said by The Great Carlini :
It's great to see the pseudo-experts come out of the woodwork.
Your juvenile behavior and condescending arrogance when people like "Hollowpoint" present logical, well thought out comments is unbecoming.
You should stop writing these public articles if you can't take criticism of your opinions without lashing out.
With that I bid good day.
'I try to get out, and they pull me back in.' - Michael Corleone |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | reply to squid7
FFTH has nothing to do with dark fiber... |
|
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
| SQUID
I have read all of your whining posts or should I call them little kid rants? Look at all the space you took up to write your character assassinations. You have been non-stop writing and ranting. Why? You have been outed.
You are entitled to your opinions but that's all they are. And bottom line, they are not really grounded in any industy expertise.
After so many long and name-calling posts, it is FINALLY out that you do not know the industry, have never worked in it, have never had any engineering courses in telephony, have never designed or budgeted a major network or infrastructure upgrade, performed due diligence in a multi-billion dollar infrastructure acquisition, have never put any marketing strategies together and cannot even comment about the financing that someone else (backness) had to point out.
At best you are a consumer. Nothing wrong with that but don't try to come off and pontificate your BS and name-calling. That doesn't speak well of your education.
The incumbents (and that is the correct spelling) are doing everything they can to hold off new approaches to network infrastructure that obsolete their business model.
Fiber, WiMax all of these technologies obsolete the traditional business model that is being protected through lobbying and other efforts (consumer marketing, etc.).
All you have to do is look at where the rest of the world is going and it certainly is not putting in copper or trying to extend its life.
I'll give you this - Verizon is on the right track and putting in fiber is the long-term investment. The electronics that hang off of it dictates the speed. Once the fiber is in the ground, you just switch out the electronics at either end to increase the speeds - EXACTLY the same approach used with copper although copper as a transmission medium will never provide the speeds that fiber will.
The MAJOR cost Squid is the trenching and putting in the fiber in the ground. (In the Labs, they have already tested terabit speeds so it is a LONG-TERM solution) Once the fiber is in, it's in. Very long term use. (just like copper was 50 years ago)
Again if you listen to the short-term thinkers or the analysts on TV, they (VERIZON) are taking a gamble with the stockholders. Stockholders deal in taking Risk.
The reality is that Verizon is positioning itself better than anyone else and with fiber (dark fiber) in the ground - they are the best candidate to be bought out because they have something of value in the ground.
As to Network Speedometers : If one company comes out with a network speedometer as part of their marketing package, the others will follow.
I gave you the proof that people are being ripped off and it's not just reading the SLA or terms, it is good corporate policy to provide what is being sold. Or do you disagree with that? That's a rhetorical question so don't waste your time answering it.
I won't waste my time on yours either. |
|
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL |  reply to squid7
It's INCUMBENTS. See my previous Post. Thanks |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to carlini7
Where is the list of ILECs that went bankrupt? |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
3 edits | reply to carlini7
It's INDUSTRY, but thanks for spell checking. Your Lionel train example works both ways and just because someone can easily manage their personal finances doesn't make them an expert in finances of a corporate scale.
How I make a good living is specializing in capital budgeting and it's specialists in capital budgeting and risk management that make these money spending recommendations to the BOD, not the electrical engineers or network specialists.
Just as I'm not an expert in network topology, you have no expertise in where to get the money or what the risk to the company is. That's not a bad thing, it's just not what you chose to study or chose as a profession as I did. So I understand your ignorance on the subject.
While you say that I'm not qualified to comment because I'm not an industry insider as you proclaim to be, in finance it doesn't matter what the money is being spent on. Finance people aren't double-majors in whatever they're planning to spend money on. If the money is being spent on engineering airplane components or assembly planning or fiber deployments, the concepts of demand, investment, risk and return are EXACTLY the same especially.
To "Finance" people, it's all widgets and the same principles apply.
I don't care how big a company is, $20 billion is a huge sum and it takes A LOT of time and painful planning to do it right and even then investors who are footing the bill get VERY nervous as they should be.
Set aside your arrogance and recognize that you don't have all of the answers and you should listen to individual posters who may be experts in different fields. Then you'll have more pieces for your position.
In your writings you appear to be heavily biased against the ILECs (not uncommon here at DSLR) and I believe it precludes you from being objective in your analysis of these issues. |
|
