dslreports logo
Qwest Q1 Earnings
Company cuts costs, trims debt...

Verizon's earnings were dragged down slightly by their ambitious fiber-to-the-home deployments. AT&T's were more impressive, with the company spending less to deploy FTTN and VDSL. Now comes Qwest, who has no wireless division to help counter landline losses, but has also yet to fully commit to IPTV or significant next-gen infrastructure improvement. The smallest of the baby bells has released its first quarter earnings, saying first-quarter profit nearly tripled after the company cut retiree benefits and streamlined their broadband installation procedures.

Qwest reduced its debt by $940 million to $13.8 billion. The company added 167,000 broadband customers to bring their total to 2.3 million. While Qwest has yet to announce their broader next-gen broadband plans, it's expected to be a mixed deployment of both FTTH and VDSL to only the most lucrative areas (developments, etc.). While the company continues to see an erosion of landline revenue, they still serve some 7.2 million landline customers.
view:
topics flat nest 
RichNice
join:2003-01-09
Bowie, MD

RichNice

Member

Now that the company will survive...

....what is next? Looks like it's time for consolidation!!!
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

now I understand!

Verizon: laying fiber, future proofing their network, bringing blazing speeds to customers - earnings down because they are spending money on fiber

AT&T: slower investment, building the future network on the cheap, has to limit speeds because of lack of bandwidth - GREAT EARNINGS! investors happy!

Qwest: pretty much no investment in future networks, plodding along in the 90s - TRIPLE PROFIT! investors really happy!

So, to recap: build the network needed for the future, get slapped by investors; limit investment (or no investment), get rewarded.

No wonder the U.S. is 15th and falling.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: now I understand!

said by nasadude:

Verizon: laying fiber, future proofing their network, bringing blazing speeds to customers - earnings down because they are spending money on fiber

AT&T: slower investment, building the future network on the cheap, has to limit speeds because of lack of bandwidth - GREAT EARNINGS! investors happy!

Qwest: pretty much no investment in future networks, plodding along in the 90s - TRIPLE PROFIT! investors really happy!

So, to recap: build the network needed for the future, get slapped by investors; limit investment (or no investment), get rewarded.

No wonder the U.S. is 15th and falling.
The percentage changes in the last 2 yrs of the 3 companies stock prices appear to bear out your analysis:

Verizon(blue); AT&T(red); Qwest(green)

Verizon stock price up 10% last 2 yrs
AT&T up 62%
Qwest up 160%

Of course Qwest stock price initially was so low that a big percentage increase was much easier to do.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: now I understand!

said by FFH5:


Verizon stock price up 10% last 2 yrs
AT&T up 62%
Qwest up 160%

Enjoy it now the end is near. There is a reason at&t and Verizon didn't merge with Qwest and doesn't want to.

John T
@northgrum.com

John T to nasadude

Anon

to nasadude
And let's not forget:

Verizon-- tries to bring fiber to richest neighborhoods first, still not making a lot of money off of it, gets attacked by activists for not losing even more money by running fiber to poor neighborhoods (who won't subscribe in as great numbers) at the same time.

Qwest-- No investment in future networks, more profit, activists are happy because no rich people are getting a better network than poor people; everybody's nice and equal with the same slow network.

Seems to be that as long as running FTTH is causing such a big drain on Verizon's bottom line, that it's a bit of putting the cart before the horse to insist that they have to upgrade everywhere all at once, even in areas that would be even more unprofitable than their current expansions.

It's not like a company like Verizon would target rich neighborhoods first because they hate poor people. They're trying to make money. If FiOS were making money then, sure, argue for making them take on money-losing areas as well for fairness. It just seems to me that it might be a little bit too early to be insisting on that when FiOS isn't even making them money right now.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: now I understand!

quote:
Qwest-- No investment in future networks, more profit, activists are happy because no rich people are getting a better network than poor people; everybody's nice and equal with the same slow network.
Which activists would those be?

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: now I understand!

said by Karl Bode:

Which activists would those be?
Rev. Al and Jessy.
viperlmw
Premium Member
join:2005-01-25

1 recommendation

viperlmw to Karl Bode

Premium Member

to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

quote:
Qwest-- No investment in future networks, more profit, activists are happy because no rich people are getting a better network than poor people; everybody's nice and equal with the same slow network.
Which activists would those be?
The net neutrality activists. They want build out requirements for the telcos as they place infrastructure or provide new service (FiOS, Lightspeed, etc.) that would greatly hamper ROI. They call it 'redlining', 'cherrypicking', etc. They don't understand the business case for getting return as you go. Some of them would like to see the incumbent telcos go belly up. Just peruse this site. You'll find them.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Let them eat dog food.

Good move Quest, cut promised benefits to those that built the company. That is a desperate move by a dieing company; Turn out the lights, the party is over.
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb

Premium Member

Re: Let them eat dog food.

said by batterup:

Good move Quest, cut promised benefits to those that built the company. That is a desperate move by a dieing company; Turn out the lights, the party is over.

Umm... huh? After years of losing money after the US West / Qwest merger and paying off some $10 billion in debt, they're now making money, profits are up and the stock price has gone from under $1 to $9. I'm not sure that's how you characterize a dieing dying company.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: Let them eat dog food.

said by dynodb:

said by batterup:

Good move Quest, cut promised benefits to those that built the company. That is a desperate move by a dieing company; Turn out the lights, the party is over.

Umm... huh? After years of losing money after the US West / Qwest merger and paying off some $10 billion in debt, they're now making money, profits are up and the stock price has gone from under $1 to $9. I'm not sure that's how you characterize a dieing dying company.
They are taking one time short sighted measures that alienate employees. at&t and Verizon don't want them. Guess why?

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Let them eat dog food.

dynodb is an employee.

I'm curious, dynodb, what is the gist on these retiree benefit changes, and what's the opinion there at Qwest?
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb

Premium Member

Re: Let them eat dog food.

Employees and retirees alike haven't been 100% pleased with the last union contract, but there was a reality that had to be faced- Qwest was in financial trouble not so long ago, health care costs have gone up, and no one wanted to see more layoffs.

Also, few wanted to see a repeat of the 2 week 1998 strike that left a lot of hard feelings in it's wake, but a lot of us expected it would come to that.

Overall, there doesn't seem to be a lot of resentment though most former-US West employees wish the merger had never happened.
viperlmw
Premium Member
join:2005-01-25

viperlmw

Premium Member

Re: Let them eat dog food.

I believe the biggest retiree issue is the change to the retiree death benefit. Used to be equal to one year pay rate, now it's flat $10,000. Managers also no longer receive a retirement (happened several years ago). Other than these, I can't think of any other retiree issues that are a big deal (your mileage may vary).

My $.02

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: Let them eat dog food.

said by viperlmw:

I believe the biggest retiree issue is the change to the retiree death benefit. Used to be equal to one year pay rate, now it's flat $10,000. Managers also no longer receive a retirement (happened several years ago). Other than these, I can't think of any other retiree issues that are a big deal (your mileage may vary).

My $.02
Managers most likely don't receive a guaranteed pension. Like Verizon management they most likely now have to invest the money on their own.
flushls
join:2004-11-02
Joyce, WA

flushls to dynodb

Member

to dynodb
I compete with QWORST every day and we are kick their collective azz period.
QWORST is dead they just don't know it yet.
viperlmw
Premium Member
join:2005-01-25

viperlmw

Premium Member

Re: Let them eat dog food.

said by flushls:

I compete with QWORST every day and we are kick their collective azz period.
QWORST is dead they just don't know it yet.
Yea, neither do the analysts, or the customers, or the stockholders, for Fitch, or anyone who acutally has a clue.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: Let them eat dog food.

said by viperlmw:

said by flushls:

I compete with QWORST every day and we are kick their collective azz period.
QWORST is dead they just don't know it yet.
Yea, neither do the analysts, or the customers, or the stockholders, for Fitch, or anyone who acutally has a clue.
It's the demographics and topography. If Qwest were part of Verizon it would be sold to FairPoint Communications.
»www.boston.com/business/ ··· a_friend
batterup

batterup to dynodb

Premium Member

to dynodb
said by dynodb:

dieing
The wright [sic] way to right [sic] that would be dieing [sic].
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb

Premium Member

FTTN, not FTTH

Seems to me they've made it pretty clear they're primarily going to rely on FTTN for the most part. May not be the bazillion megabytes BBR posters claim is necessary, but you're still looking at up to 24M if and when they go ADSL2+, and that's a hell of a lot faster than the 1.5M they offer from most of their remote DSLAMs now.

The way I understand it, their FTTH deployments have been mostly with new construction where the developer contracted with Qwest from the beginning.

They may not have announced details about network upgrades, but you can bet it's happening behind the scenes- people aren't going to be satisfied with 1.5M from their remote DSLAMs for long.

With Verizon only getting 10% penetration for FIOS the first year and 15% after that, it'll be a while before there's a nationwide effort to deliver FTTH.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: FTTN, not FTTH

FTTN; Fiber To The Node.
FTTH; Fiber To The Hub.
FTTP; Fiber To The Premise.
FTTC; Fiber To The Curb.

FIOS; COMING TO MY HOUSE.
»/showp ··· 7&sort=v
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb

Premium Member

Re: FTTN, not FTTH

said by batterup:

FTTN; Fiber To The Node.
FTTH; Fiber To The Hub.
FTTP; Fiber To The Premise.
FTTC; Fiber To The Curb.

FIOS; COMING TO MY HOUSE.
»/showp ··· 7&sort=v
Sorry duder, but you might want to have a clue what you're talking about before trying to correct others.

FTTH: Fiber To The Home; the more commonly used equivalent of FTTP: Fiber To The Premise.

FTTN: Fiber To The Neighborhood and Fiber To The Node used interchangably and having the same meaning.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: FTTN, not FTTH

said by dynodb:

said by batterup:

FTTN; Fiber To The Node.
FTTH; Fiber To The Hub.
FTTP; Fiber To The Premise.
FTTC; Fiber To The Curb.

FIOS; COMING TO MY HOUSE.
»/showp ··· 7&sort=v
Sorry duder, but you might want to have a clue what you're talking about before trying to correct others.

FTTH: Fiber To The Home; the more commonly used equivalent of FTTP: Fiber To The Premise.

FTTN: Fiber To The Neighborhood and Fiber To The Node used interchangably and having the same meaning.
I have been waiting for that.
»www.cel.com/pdf/glossary ··· nyms.pdf
Read it a weep.
quote:
FTTH fiber to the hub
If you see it on the interweb you know it is true.
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

dynodb

Premium Member

Re: FTTN, not FTTH

ROFLMAO, Junior, I don't care what that one website by one company says- FTTH refers to Fiber To The Home, and that's how 99.9999% of those who use the term understand it.

"Fiber To The Hub" makes little sense since broadband isn't deployed from anything commonly referred to as a "hub".

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: FTTN, not FTTH

said by dynodb:

ROFLMAO, Junior, I don't care what that one website by one company says- FTTH refers to Fiber To The Home, and that's how 99.9999% of those who use the term understand it.

"Fiber To The Hub" makes little sense since broadband isn't deployed from anything commonly referred to as a "hub".
Junior?? I was building TPC long before you were a gleam in your father's eye. I might be your father. Was your mother ever in Bangkok?

fiostech20
@verizon.net

fiostech20 to dynodb

Anon

to dynodb
said by dynodb:

ROFLMAO, Junior, I don't care what that one website by one company says- FTTH refers to Fiber To The Home, and that's how 99.9999% of those who use the term understand it.

"Fiber To The Hub" makes little sense since broadband isn't deployed from anything commonly referred to as a "hub".
Duder, thanks for telling us all how this guy is wrong, gee and to think that I have been going to the fiber "hub" to run my x-connect before going to the premises. I'm pissed, I'm going to have to bitch at someone because now I don't know what to call it.;)

fiberbaby
@verizon.net

fiberbaby to dynodb

Anon

to dynodb
said by dynodb:

ROFLMAO, Junior, I don't care what that one website by one company says- FTTH refers to Fiber To The Home, and that's how 99.9999% of those who use the term understand it.

"Fiber To The Hub" makes little sense since broadband isn't deployed from anything commonly referred to as a "hub".
Dude, batterup is 100% right, last I checked I stop at the fiber "hub" everytime I need to run my x-connect for a new customer.
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb

Premium Member

Re: FTTN, not FTTH

said by fiberbaby :

said by dynodb:

ROFLMAO, Junior, I don't care what that one website by one company says- FTTH refers to Fiber To The Home, and that's how 99.9999% of those who use the term understand it.

"Fiber To The Hub" makes little sense since broadband isn't deployed from anything commonly referred to as a "hub".
Dude, batterup is 100% right, last I checked I stop at the fiber "hub" everytime I need to run my x-connect for a new customer.
That you have to run a cross connect at a fiber "hub" is meaningless- the industry uses FTTH to refer to fiber to the home. "fiber to the hub" is meaningless- a fiber distribution box or SLC could be anywhere- at the demarc (FTTH), at the curb (FTTH), at the node (FTTN), etc. "Fiber to the hub" is a non-descriptive term unused in relation to broadband service.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: FTTN, not FTTH

said by dynodb:

the industry uses FTTH to refer to fiber to the home.
A business in not a home, a sewer treatment plant is not a home, they are premises though. FTTHome is a very bad term for FTTPremis.

Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI

Alakar

Member

Re: FTTN, not FTTH

I haven't got a dog in this fight, however if you do a Google search on "FTTH" there is not a single reference to "Fiber To The Hub" on any page returned on at least the first 4 pages. I didn't search any farther then that, but on those first 4 pages are sites from the US, Europe, Japan and China and all of them refer to "FTTH" as "Fiber To The Home".

»www.google.com/search?hl ··· e+Search
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb to batterup

Premium Member

to batterup
said by batterup:

said by dynodb:

the industry uses FTTH to refer to fiber to the home.
A business in not a home, a sewer treatment plant is not a home, they are premises though. FTTHome is a very bad term for FTTPremis.
Perhaps the time will come that FTTP takes the place of FTTH as the term used to delivering fiber to a user building... but that time is not yet here, with the possible exception of a few datacom insider types.

FTTP probably is a better term for the reason you gave, but FTTH as "fiber to the hub" is an equally bad if not worse term- both because nearly everyone interprets FTTH as "fiber to the home", but also since it doesn't describe where the fiber terminates in relation to the user, other than as a "hub", which is usually refers to a dumb splitter instead of a switch, node or router. FTTC is the traditional term, and a better one IMO.
viperlmw
Premium Member
join:2005-01-25

1 edit

viperlmw

Premium Member

Re: FTTN, not FTTH

Isn't hub a term used more in cable than telephony? I've never heard of a telco remote terminal (RT) called a hub, but aren't there hubs in cable distribution systems?

Edit: Nortel makes a remote switching unit that they call a HUB, for their DMS line of class 5 switches. Doesn't apply here, but am trying to be complete.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to dynodb

Member

to dynodb
said by dynodb:

Seems to me they've made it pretty clear they're primarily going to rely on FTTN for the most part. May not be the bazillion megabytes BBR posters claim is necessary, but you're still looking at up to 24M if and when they go ADSL2+, and that's a hell of a lot faster than the 1.5M they offer from most of their remote DSLAMs now.
And how much of that 24M will anyone see in the real world? You happy on ATT NextGen(Uverse) DSL, 6/1, wonderful isnt it?