  mech1164I'll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ |
Serves them right,This is what happens when a company has to compete. After all this time. They would rather have you over a barrel and force you to pay through nose. Then try to make a product better and get more per sub. VZ is just like the Music industry, just a shade different. If it was left up to them we would all be on rotary dial and hardwired in.
All I can say is Cry me a River. | |
|
 |  ·Verizon FiOS
|
Re: Serves them right,What happened to the days of Verizon boasting how much less maintenance is required for FiOS ?? $6 call waiting? What about the BILLIONS saved on weather issues that the fiber network is immune to when compared to copper?
With this strike, Verizon's PR is being EXTREMELY misleading. | |
|
 ·ooma
 ·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
|
tmc8080
Member
2011-Aug-12 10:33 am
$8 buys alot more these daysyou can bu a $10 tracfone and have 120 minutes (doubled) for $20 a month and that works out to about $7 a month... so yeah, verizon will have to do better.
just because at&t and verizon think they can duopolize the market doesn't mean that other companies are going to fall lock-step in line and raise their prices... (if if they do watch them destroy demand for all cell phone companies).
FIOS deployed in the MOST profitable ROI zones.. but we all know that incumbents existed there for quite a few years (decades) before they decided to upgrade... that hesitation and continued mis-calculations... Requiring contracts, cherry picking install locations, forced bundling to get discounts and installation fees, and bungled 4-6 hour installations all put Veizon's reputation in the toilet. Slowly they're making progress on righing those wrongs.. but it will take probably another 5-10 years for consumers to get that bad taste out of their mouths (** that is why they have HALF the customers they WOULD HAVE HAD in overlapping markets of Cablevision, and Time Warner HAD they done things RIGHT instead of BUMBLINGLY WRONG) What is not helping is the path they're decding to go down hand-in-hand with AT&T on cellular! The company is foolish, if not stupid for repeating past mistakes of raising prices arrogantly and unilaterally screwing the consumer and imposing bad terms of service. That gamble ultimately won't pay off as the POST PAID cellular market **WILL** shrink considerably as a result.
MORE than half the problems Verizon has now in dealing with competition is the BED THEY MADE FOR THEMSELVES. Now they have to lie in it... or sell out to AT&T.. good luck with that. Still easier to fix the mistakes then become a failure (like Tmobile and MCI worldcom) | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 ·Time Warner Cable
|
iansltx
Member
2011-Aug-12 12:41 pm
Re: $8 buys alot more these daysFiOS is a solid product. LTE is a solid product. Neither of these have any competition right now in the areas they serve from a pure technical standpoint (T-Mobile HSPA+ comes close but falls short).
Then again, these advances have come from Verizon seeing the need to compete (with cable on the FiOS side, with Sprint/T-Mobile/AT&T on the wireless side) and deciding to one-up the competition instead of matching and running the risk of becoming/staying irrelevant.
Of course, it also helps that, other than in Cablevision markets where the duopoly actually does a VERY good job of competing with each other, everyone tends to go toward nonprice competition to gain customers. | |
|
| |  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
|
Re: $8 buys alot more these dayssaid by iansltx:FiOS is a solid product. LTE is a solid product. Neither of these have any competition right now in the areas they serve from a pure technical standpoint (T-Mobile HSPA+ comes close but falls short).
HSPA+ is faster then Verizon LTE. LTE is just a protocol, HSPA+ can reach speeds just as fast as LTE. LTE is just Verizons attempt to catch up to ATT. --
They Live... We Sleep...
“Spreading the wealth around” never results in a better outcome for people. It always results in destruction.
| |
|
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 ·Time Warner Cable
|
Re: $8 buys alot more these daysShow me a speed test on HSPA+ that beats 30/10 on LTE. I've seen 18 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up on my HSPA+ dual-carrier T-Mobile aircard, but that's obviously less than what VZ LTE does. Though I get better latency than Verizon in some cases...I've seen pings as low as 22ms to nearby sites. | |
|
| | | | |
kdepa to DaveDude
Anon
2011-Aug-12 4:21 pm
to DaveDude
said by DaveDude:HSPA+ is faster then Verizon LTE. LTE is just a protocol, HSPA+ can reach speeds just as fast as LTE. LTE is just Verizons attempt to catch up to ATT.
Um, from what I understand, that's not even remotely true... From wikipedia: "HSPA+ provides HSPA data rates up to 84 Megabits per second (Mbit/s) on the downlink and 22 Mbit/s on the uplink..." "The LTE specification provides downlink peak rates of at least 100 Mbps, an uplink of at least 50 Mbps...The standard includes: Peak download rates of 326.4 Mbit/s for 4x4 antennas, and 172.8 Mbit/s for 2x2 antennas (using 20 MHz of spectrum). Peak upload rates of 86.4 Mbit/s for every 20 MHz of spectrum using a single antenna." Now, there are proposed upgrades to HSPA+ that could make it faster: "Future revisions of HSPA+ support up to 168 Mbit/s using multiple carriers in DC-HSPA+ revision and up to 672 Mbit/s is proposed for 3GPP Release 11 using advanced antenna techniques.", but until that's released, it's nothing but vaporware... | |
|
| | | |  Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL |
Oh_No
Member
2011-Aug-12 7:20 pm
Re: $8 buys alot more these daysYou are mixing up the LTE spec (3G) with the LTE-A spec (4G).
LTE and HSPA+ have basically the exact same speeds.
Theoretical Speeds
-------------------------
Verizon LTE - 300 Mbps (using 20 MHz of spectrum MIMO)
ATT HSPA+ - 84 Mbps (Using 5 Mhz Channel MIMO)
Sprint WIMAX - 128 Mbps (Using 20 MHz of spectrum MIMO)
Real World Speeds
------------------------
Verizon LTE - 2 to 20 Mbps
ATT HSPA+ - 2 to 20 Mbps
Sprint WIMAX - 3 Mbps
Theoretically all the technologies can go 50mbps+ but outside a lab in the real world it does not happen especially when they do not allocate the full spectrum. | |
|
 jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3 |
jjoshua
Premium Member
2011-Aug-12 10:39 am
Not profitable at allYou can't claim a profit on $0 revenue.
The only reason to have POTS service in the voip age is if there is some value in having reliable, regulated service over copper wire.
Once I switched to fios, my POTS line was converted to fiber. If my POTS service was going to be as reliable as any voip service, then there was no reason to keep my POTS line.
Verizon went from $37 per month revenue to $0 per month revenue. | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 ·Time Warner Cable
|
iansltx
Member
2011-Aug-12 12:42 pm
Re: Not profitable at allBut how much did you pay for DSL before, and how much do you pay for FiOS internet now? The difference might not be $37, but if maintenance costs on FiOS are lower then Verizon may not mind the switch too much (though they'll lament it anyway in earnings calls). | |
|
| | jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3 |
jjoshua
Premium Member
2011-Aug-12 12:50 pm
Re: Not profitable at allI used to pay comcast for internet and tv. When they wouldn't give me a better deal than fios, their revenue went to $0 per month.
Now, every 3 days comcast mails me a special offer. | |
|
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 |
Re: Not profitable at allI'm a current Comcast customer and they still send me special offers. They all involve getting TV or voice though, so I haven't responded to one yet. | |
|
 EdrickI aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium Member
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA |
Edrick
Premium Member
2011-Aug-12 10:47 am
Companies Do RealizeThat if they offer a service that is leading edge or at least BETTER than the other guy even if they make slightly less profit over all or slightly less profit per customer over all it usually works out for the better. Since you're not seen as this evil corporation, customers recommend you, they keep their services. It works out a heck of a lot better than how the US has been running business for the past 50 years. HELLO companies wake up and notice you're screwed. You think UK or Egyptian Rioters are bad wait until the US gets pissed. Guess who's getting a brick through their front window? --
Edrick Smith
Independent Film & Broadcast Producer
»edricksmith.com | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 ·Time Warner Cable
|
iansltx
Member
2011-Aug-12 12:44 pm
Re: Companies Do RealizeThe "slightly less profit" doesn't exactly apply, but VZW LTE and FiOS are both better than the competition in the areas they serve. Try getting 150M down, 35 (or I hear it's actually 75) M up on cable, or 15/5 or better over WiMAX or T-Mobile HSPA+ (I have both so I can tell you that the speeds aren't quite there). | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO ·Charter
|
rradina
Member
2011-Aug-12 11:06 am
Does this consider fiber's low maintenance and longevity?I was under the impression that fiber is far superior to copper. Doesn't it last longer and isn't it far less susceptible to environmental factors that destroy the longevity of a copper plant?
If what I've said is true, after it's built, it should be far cheaper to maintain and more reliable. If expenses are lower, doesn't this help offset or more than offset reduced revenue opportunities?
Given fiber's gratuitous bandwidth and functional capabilities, I'm sure there are future technology plays that haven't even been invented on which they could gain revenue. | |
|
| mech1164I'll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ |
Re: Does this consider fiber's low maintenance and longevity?said by rradina:I was under the impression that fiber is far superior to copper. Doesn't it last longer and isn't it far less susceptible to environmental factors that destroy the longevity of a copper plant?
If what I've said is true, after it's built, it should be far cheaper to maintain and more reliable. If expenses are lower, doesn't this help offset or more than offset reduced revenue opportunities?
Given fiber's gratuitous bandwidth and functional capabilities, I'm sure there are future technology plays that haven't even been invented on which they could gain revenue.
Thing is he's not complaining about the cost savings. It's that they can't now charge outrageous amounts for services that cost them pennies and are now available for cost with voip. They want those charges back any way they can. The whole point is they don't and will not want to compete. To them it costs too much. Poor them. | |
|
| |  PathfinderDazed Confused
Premium Member
join:2000-03-26
New York, NY
|
Re: Does this consider fiber's low maintenance and longevity?said by mech1164:[
Thing is he's not complaining about the cost savings. It's that they can't now charge outrageous amounts for services that cost them pennies and are now available for cost with voip. They want those charges back any way they can. The whole point is they don't and will not want to compete. To them it costs too much. Poor them.
Is that the Verizon spokesman or Karl's take? | |
|
| | |
to rradina
Karl (or his source) appears to have mangled the original discussion with selective sound biting. The discussion that the CEO is undertaking isn't that it will be less profitable in total it's that gross margin will be lower. They could very likely make much more total profit but dramatically reduce their gross margin. This is the result of a high cost service (TV) but big licensing fees.
In simpler terms (using made up numbers); Verizons might make $70 or average per TV customer but their profit will only be in the range of 10$, where with a $50 phone bill they could have made the same $10 profit so in a combined situation they might now make $20 on average their percentage of profit declines. The higher cost on the TV service for the same profit lowers gross margin (a factor that's very important to wall street, although IMO totally inapplicable in this situation). Essentially what the guy on top is doing is trying to soften the blow of weaker gross margin by selling up the higher total profit. Karl (or his source) appears to have only soundbited the drop in gross margin. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO ·Charter
|
Re: Does this consider fiber's low maintenance and longevity?OK -- got it. However, I somewhat disagree that margin is entirely inapplicable in this situation. What's inapplicable is a comparison to their own previous performance since that was a completely different product. However, it's still applicable to gauge the health of their operations by comparing them with competitor margins who sell the same services. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Does this consider fiber's low maintenance and longevity?Yes. The problem is wall street generally puts on the blinders when comparing quarterly reports. Gross margin and it's change is a very effective measure of management performance. A companies decline is frequently proceeded by a rapid change in gross margin that indicates managements loss of control over the business. The problem is, as I say that wall street puts on the blinders and doesn't effectively monitor the change in business that proceeds the change in gross margin in this situation. That's what the CEO is doing, bringing the change in business to the front of the analysts so that this change in business type doesn't go unnoticed and result in a decline in stock price due to the resulting change in gross margin.
Verizon's FIOS project and movement into the TV business is changing their entire fundamentals of the company. In the long run they will make more profit but the TV side of the business will drag down the gross margin. | |
|
| |
Don't Believe Shammo's B.S.!!!Yea....now all of a sudden FIOS will never be as profitable, at least while there's a strike! I wonder if he changes his mind after the strike is over and it's business as usual if there will be a sudden trend towards profitability! Just remember...."How can you tell if a Verizon exec is lying? Answer....His lips are moving."
He'll find a way somehow to justify his outrageous salary along with his pals up top! | |
|
| | |
HappyAnarchy
Anon
2011-Aug-12 11:49 am
Re: Don't Believe Shammo's B.S.!!!Don't think he was saying that at all. He was saying not as profitable as the old copper lines, which is true. They made outrageous profits on the old copper lines. I don't think there is anything they can do that will be that profitable again.
Now if they were to use that as an excuse to not keep pursuing FIOS that would be an issue for certain. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Don't Believe Shammo's B.S.!!!Give me a break, for years & years copper was not profitable during contract negotiations. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Aug-12 11:24 am
OddI thought the reason that phone companies charged $8 for call waiting and other ridiculous fees for other services was due to the regulated nature of residential phone prices. Phone companies were not allowed to charge customers the full costs of providing phone service so they'd just make it up by jacking fees up on everyone else.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 |
Re: OddHere is the reason it wont survive.
Verizon- unlimited calling , vm ,caller-id $65 + tax
Viatalk - unlimited calling, all features - $16
Its not like they didnt see this coming. | |
|
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 ·Time Warner Cable
|
iansltx
Member
2011-Aug-12 12:46 pm
Re: OddIn some areas VoIP doesn't have local phone numbers, which matters because some people still have basic landlines with local-only calling. The result: less people go with VoIP, particularly if the only available flavor with local numbers comes from the cable company and costs $40-$50 per month (you can get unlimited cellular service for less). | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Oddsaid by iansltx:In some areas VoIP doesn't have local phone numbers, which matters because some people still have basic landlines with local-only calling. The result: less people go with VoIP, particularly if the only available flavor with local numbers comes from the cable company and costs $40-$50 per month (you can get unlimited cellular service for less).
Not that I doubt your correct, but where can't you get a local number? I've never had a problem, and I've been around. | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 ·Time Warner Cable
|
Re: Odd» localcallingguide.com/lc ··· h=191430Level3 has something in Willow City, which is local to the Fredericksburg exchange, however it's next to impossibly to get phone numbers from there for VoIP. It's like it's a TDM voice only setup :/ If you're wondering what the various LECs on that list are, feel free to ask. Their either landline (K2C = CLEC with no VoIP), cellular (the long one that starts with a Y) or won't return my calls about getting VoIP DIDs. | |
|
| |  DocDrewaka DrDrew
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:22
ARRIS SB6141
Linksys EA6900
|
to DaveDude
said by DaveDude:Here is the reason it wont survive.
Verizon- unlimited calling , vm ,caller-id $65 + tax
Viatalk - unlimited calling, all features - $16
Its not like they didnt see this coming.
It's easier to be cheaper when it's just an "over the top" service that doesn't actually provide the base connectivity needed to offer the service. Without an internet connection (which costs extra), Viatalk is useless. --
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes. | |
|
| | | DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 ·Xfinity
|
Re: Oddsaid by DocDrew:said by DaveDude:Here is the reason it wont survive.
Verizon- unlimited calling , vm ,caller-id $65 + tax
Viatalk - unlimited calling, all features - $16
Its not like they didnt see this coming.
It's easier to be cheaper when it's just an "over the top" service that doesn't actually provide the base connectivity needed to offer the service. Without an internet connection (which costs extra), Viatalk is useless. and you point is ? (2011) --
They Live... We Sleep...
“Spreading the wealth around” never results in a better outcome for people. It always results in destruction.
| |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
to DaveDude
said by DaveDude:Verizon- unlimited calling , vm ,caller-id $65 + tax
Viatalk - unlimited calling, all features - $16 VoIP will always be cheaper than POTS since VoIP has no network to maintain. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assert that even if Verizon cut every corner it could that POTS could never be offered at that price. --
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| |
Simulacrum
Anon
2011-Aug-12 11:55 am
It's all about ROIVerizon, AT&T, and every other publicly held corporation in the world must do what is ultimately in the best interest of shareholders. There many in the Wall St. community who have criticized Verizon for going as far as they did in rolling out FTTH. Ultimately Verizon is better positioned for the future now in Fios markets than they might have been had they not upgraded. That may not matter if they can't get a return on their investment in the near term. Most of us who frequent this board would LOVE to have the kind of bandwidth that Fios promises, with the kind of pricing found in S. Korea or Japan. Realistically we do not have the population density in this country to make that possible with a handful of national carriers. Perhaps the solution is to have municipalities build their own fiber networks and lease them out to ISPs, thereby reducing much of the risk and overhead to carriers. Cities build their own roads, and many operate electric and gas utilities. It seems like a natural fit. | |
|
| | |
Re: It's all about ROIThe cost to value price in the US could easily match the other industrialized nations. We'd just have to accept that communication is a natural monopoly and only pay to build out fiber networks once. The single most important reason that the same service is double or triple the price of every industrialized nation is that the US is building out the same system 2-3 times in every city. This is result of forcing a semi-competitive environment on a natural monopoly. | |
|
 COMMANPlug Me In
join:2000-07-17
Mount Juliet, TN |
COMMAN
Member
2011-Aug-12 12:05 pm
So a "dumb pipe" isn't profitable?!?"According to Shammo, increased competition for TV services and the high cost of programming are the primary reasons why -- both of which are a product of Verizon's decision to not just upgrade to FTTH -- but to also jump into the TV delivery game."
Had they chosen to become a pipeline for any and all data services and let the market decide which of those services survived then they'd be sitting pretty... but NO, they had to be a provider of content too.
UPPER MANAGEMENT=No Vision Past The End of Next Quarter!!
--
Broadcasting TO the people, FOR the people, BY the people - INTERNET RADIO! | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 ·Time Warner Cable
|
iansltx
Member
2011-Aug-12 12:49 pm
Re: So a "dumb pipe" isn't profitable?!?They aren't losing money on providing TV, so it's a good idea for them to keep the service, especially now that they have the network built to support it. They're just whining about TV not being as big of a profit center as dead/dying landline service, which now has competition from cable VoIP, "indie" VoIP and cellular providers ranging from Virgin Mobile and Boost Mobile to CricKet and...shocker...VZW! | |
|
| | |
to COMMAN
Re: So a "dumb pipe" isn't profitable?!?In the FIOS areas that dont have TV, it DOES NOT SELL ! TV is what sells the service, SUPERIOR TV. | |
|
| |
Somebody call a waaaambulance!!!WAAAAA WAAAA WAAAAA!!!! Greedy mofo's. The problem is FiOS isn't available in places that matter still and deployment as stalled. | |
|
| |
Phil Harvey
Anon
2011-Aug-12 12:36 pm
timing is everythingThe timing of Shammo's comment is interesting. Striking workers are asking for more from Verizon at the same time the CFO is saying (roughly), "Hey, our glory days are behind us as far as the wireline network is concerned." The implication is that Verizon can't do more for workers because its future won't be as profitable as could be in the past (when there were stronger unions and more loyalty from employers and employees alike). | |
|
| |
Force Migrate !Then Force Migrate your customers to FiOS. Shut down the the Copper POTS Lines Dig UP and Recycle the copper that's in the Ground or use Kable X » www.kabel-x.com/ Copper to Fiber Without Excavation. Use the funds from the Recycled Copper to expand FiOS to more Areas. VZ should do it and get the green subsides and taxs cuts. | |
|
| | bigdaddy |
It's Offical !» www.fiercetelecom.com/st ··· 11-08-12Verizon CFO Shammo: Expanding wireline's profit remains a challenge August 12, 2011 — 10:39am ET | By Sean Buckley Replacing copper with fiber Another area where Verizon believes it can possibly reduce costs is to shut down its aging copper network and move customers onto fiber where it has gained decent FiOS penetration. Last year, the service provider migrated a number of its customers in Bartonsville, Texas off the existing copper network and onto fiber. "It was a neighborhood that had more than 50 percent penetration so it made financial sense to connect the ONT to the home and delete the copper network," Shammo said, adding that they are "doing a trial in Florida in another community." Outside of Texas, Verizon is now researching how it could make a similar copper to fiber transition in Wesley Chapel, Fla., a rural town outside Tampa. Regardless of its progress in replacing copper with fiber, Shammo is quick to point out that the real cost challenge with deploying FTTH is not the equipment, but actually the man hours it takes to connect a subscriber to the network. "Because it takes an employee--it's the hourly salary of that employee that gets capitalized for connecting up that home," he said. "That's really the intensive capital nature of the connection. It's not the hardware." | |
|
| |
Verizon is full of.....Fiber is already more profitable than copper. Oh wait, they fixed FiOS issues...DSL they just ignore or try to make you buy FiOS. | |
|
 KCrimson
Premium Member
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1 |
KCrimson
Premium Member
2011-Aug-12 8:37 pm
What a SHOCK!I can't BELIEVE that Verizon's fiber investment won't be as profitable as their 40+ year monopoly of copper service. I mean how in the WORLD could a coercive government sanctioned monopoly on copper communications technology actually turn a hefty profit? The next thing I'll be hearing is that Ford turned bigger profits BEFORE they had foreign competition.  | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2011-Aug-15 1:00 pm
Re: What a SHOCK!I can't believe it either but it doesn't really matter because copper (POTS) telecommunications technology is heading towards a 0% profit future. The only question now is how soon that will be. | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
