how-to block ads
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
| reply to carlini7
Re: Not this idiot again...YES Captain Obvious
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. | |
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
| 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 | |
|
