 | | Our new "customer retention plan"..... "We will reduce the service we provide, while charging you more, and expect you to be happy about it. We will then be confused when you switch companies, and tell our shareholders the loss of revenue is due to the economy and bit torrent."
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
|
 |  levI am RadiodocPremium,Ex-mod 2002-08
join:2001-05-30
Chicago, IL
kudos:2
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Our new "customer retention plan"..... For over a year now, U-verse has been getting primary focus in AT&T. AT&T's decided that's where the future is, and they're putting eggs into that basket. Traditional POTS/DSL is a low priority, and seen as lower profit.
The problem is, U-verse is deployed in far too few places.
Unless they're actually losing money on DSL customers, AT&T is driving away a revenue source, and probably a few POTS accounts in the process. Let's see what things look like in a year.
With the Dow at 8635, AT&T closed at 28.15. Anyone want to post yesterday's closing numbers for Comcast, Verizon, Charter, TWC, and Qwest? | |
|
| |  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | Re: Our new "customer retention plan"..... said by lev:With the Dow at 8635, AT&T closed at 28.15. Anyone want to post yesterday's closing numbers for Comcast, Verizon, Charter, TWC, and Qwest? Comcast - CMCSA - 16.16
Verizon - VZ - 33.19
Charter - CHTR - 0.168
Time Warner Cable - TWC - 20.80
Qwest - Q - 3.03
Looks like VZ is doing the best, share price-wise, of the bunch.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Our new "customer retention plan"..... Market cap is more relevant than share price.
T = $165.89B
VZ = $94.28B
CMCSA = $46.54B
TWC = $20.32B
Q = $5.16B
CHTR = $69.25M | |
|
| | | | levI am RadiodocPremium,Ex-mod 2002-08
join:2001-05-30
Chicago, IL
kudos:2 Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Our new "customer retention plan"..... The reason I chose stock price over market cap is that I'm expecting AT&T to perform more poorly in a year than now relative to the rest of the market.
Also, stock price reflects investors' belief in value based on performance.
I'm saving the link to this thread in my calendar for both June 1, 2009 and December 1, 2009. Let's see what all these numbers look like then. | |
|
| | | | |  jsinaikoPremium
join:2001-04-25
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Our new "customer retention plan"..... Would you say the disparity between ATT and Verizon involves the fairly low penetration of U-Verse vs. the longer reach and higher deployment levels of FIOS?
As least in terms of what investors are thinking?
--
Illegitimati non carborundum
| |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | I don't believe T will perform much worse than its peers over the next year.said by lev:Also, stock price reflects investors' belief in value based on performance. Only for the investor sheep. Educated investors will look at many different aspects of a company before investing. A $20/share stock can be much more valuable than a $50/share stock. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by lev:The reason I chose stock price over market cap is that I'm expecting AT&T to perform more poorly in a year than now relative to the rest of the market. Also, stock price reflects investors' belief in value based on performance. I'm saving the link to this thread in my calendar for both June 1, 2009 and December 1, 2009. Let's see what all these numbers look like then. For what yuo suggest market cap or enterprise value would be the better guage than stock price. Stock price is meaningless. a company with 50 shares trading at $2 is not worth twice as much as a company with 100 shares trading at $1 | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
 ·Hargray Cable
| Re: Our new "customer retention plan"..... said by r81984:said by lev:Also, stock price reflects investors' belief in value based on performance. HA Stock price has nothing to do with a company's value, performance, or anything realistic. Stock prices are just numbers made up to gamble with. No not made up numbers. A true base is P/E. Simple way to think of it is how much would you pay for the company? Would you buy a company thats profit the next year would pay off what you paid for the company? Yes you would. Next question is how many years would it take to pay off your orginal investment? 10 years sound reasonable? 15? 20? A high P/E ratio is used for companies that are growing profits because they will pay off quicker then a company that has flat profits. Flat profits will get you a lower P/E than a growth copmpany.
There are other things involved but the numbers aren't made up. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | said by openbox9:Market cap is more relevant than share price. T = $165.89B VZ = $94.28B CMCSA = $46.54B TWC = $20.32B Q = $5.16B CHTR = $69.25M Especially with telecoms enterprise value is more relevant than market cap. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Our new "customer retention plan"..... said by captain456 :
[Especially with telecoms enterprise value is more relevant than market cap. Ok. Like I stated previously, there are many aspects of a company that should be examined before making a financial investment.
EV
T = $241.07B
VZ = $137.38B
CMCSA = $77.31B
TWC = $32.49B
Q = $18.55B
CHTR = $20.60B | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | No Frills Is Best Personally I wish all ISPs or other connectivity providers would stop embedding these kinds of "value added" services. Most of the time they just get in the way of my trying to use the primary service in a manner of my choosing.
Besides, things like social networking, email, photo and video sharing can all be done for free now. There's no need for a connectivity provider to bundle pay versions of these services.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty | |
|
| | | Re: No Frills Is Best Well pnh,
Unless they want to CUT THEIR PRICES in conjunction with axing these services, then I see a problem. Why should I pay the same, and get far less for my money? Business can be taken elsewhere =). | |
|
| | | | Re: No Frills Is Best said by jc100:Well pnh, Unless they want to CUT THEIR PRICES in conjunction with axing these services, then I see a problem. Why should I pay the same, and get far less for my money? Business can be taken elsewhere =). Of course the fact that you paid the same and got more when they first introduced Flickr Pro for free is long forgotten. So in fact, AT&T is simply bringing their DSL service back to where it was. | |
|
| | | | | Re: No Frills Is Best that would be a valid point, but in fact they had taken away yahoo photos, because yahoo was changing from that to flickr, so nothing was added new for free, just replaced 1 for 1. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: No Frills Is Best Which is basically them removing a service they gave to all when they signed up. Now their 1:1 swap is 1 subtracting 1 and back to a loss. So yes, now they can drop the price of their service, since we will get less for our buck or business can go elsewhere. | |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 |  WHY did they drop it not mentioned
The news item doesn't say. But I suspect that Yahoo, in deep trouble financially, wanted a lot more money from AT&T to provide Flickr Pro services for free to their customers. And if the amount requested by Yahoo was large enough, AT&T would have had to increase prices for their internet users. Hence, the downgrade to regular Flickr accounts.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
| Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: WHY did they drop it not mentioned But I suspect that Yahoo, in deep trouble financially, wanted a lot more money from AT&T to provide Flickr Pro services for free to their customers. I suspect you're right. But were any demands made unreasonable? I fired an e-mail to Yahoo but haven't heard back... | |
|
| | | said by ThrowDemsOut:But I suspect that Yahoo, in deep trouble financially, wanted a lot more money from AT&T to provide Flickr Pro services for free to their customers. And if the amount requested by Yahoo was large enough, AT&T would have had to increase prices for their internet users. Hence, the downgrade to regular Flickr accounts. Yahoo! should have been able to predict if AT&T was unwilling to pay a new higher fee for free services and would have been further ahead to raise it for everyone (not just ISPs who buy in BULK, but unwilling to pay full price per user).
No, considering AT&T have been on the front lines of claiming a "bandwidth apocalypse", adding caps, pay-per-byte, outrageous overage charges, and acting as if 99% of their customers were already overusing their accounts. I would be more willing to suspect AT&T of the drop. | |
|
| | | Not quite. Way back in the day (when the AT&T-Yahoo! cobrand started), AT&T was looking for a way to deliver a portal experience (like AOL) without having to build it themselves. AT&t negotiated a deal where they would pay Yahoo! per-subscriber for a premium experience.
Fast forward to late 2007/early 2008. AT&T no longer felt that the portal experience was as important and wanted to renegotiate the deal. The new deal (announced here on DSLR news -- »Yahoo, AT&T Renew Ties) reduced AT&T's fixed cost-per-customer and increased the advertising revshare given to AT&T on AT&T-Yahoo! page views. As part of this deal, the number of premium services (Flickr Pro being one of them) negotiated by AT&T were reduced.
The long and short of it is that AT&T wanted to pay less per-subscriber and make more on advertising revshare at the expense of the customer experience.
Hopefully this helps... | |
|
| | | | Re: WHY did they drop it not mentioned It also helps that AT&T now has a full portal solution developed 100% in house )which includes a photo album solution with, as far as I can tell, unlimited storage). Granted, you have to be an account that isn't on AT&T Yahoo! to use it...
Benefits to AT&T: they get 100% of the advertising revenue, the product is developed 100% in house to keep costs down, and people are already using it.
When did AT&T come up with this solution? They didn't. They acquired it in the merger with BellSouth. The replaced the former AT&T WorldNet portal with it earlier this year, and eventually migrated legacy AT&T customers (that didn't migrate to AT&T Yahoo!) to it.
In fact, the new "AT&T Yahoo!" page actually has alot of services provided 100% by AT&T (take Travel for instance). | |
|
| | | | | Re: WHY did they drop it not mentioned The big draw to Flickr is the social sharing aspect of the site. There are a million photo sharing sites out there, but Flickr is the most popular one for sharing photos publicly with friends and groups. That's a value-add that AT&T is unlikely (and shouldn't be) developing in-house. | |
|
| | | Honestly...how many people do you think even knew about the Flickr subsidy? I've been an AT&T internet user for years and never heard of the discount. AT&T ain't no fool. I'm sure they analyzed their customer base to determine the % of customers that truly utilized the premium Flickr membership offer and determined they could cut it loose without much negative publicity. Besides, AT&T has had as rocky relationship with Yahoo in recent years concerning the co-branding of broadband service. Before the name change from SBC to AT&T, Yahoo used to get a large annual payment from AT&T because Yahoo was responsible for both marketing to and activating new AT&T broadband customers. This service was branded under the SBC Yahoo! Broadband (DSL) moniker or something to that effect. I believe that contract was cancelled outwrite as the "new AT&T" in-sourced that operation so that the Yahoo name didn't dilute the AT&T brand and/or confuse existing/new customers. I could be wrong, but I remember reading an article a year or so ago that stated that the old SBC paid Yahoo roughly 400 million annually for that service and cancelled the contract completely. This was one of the reasons why Microsoft was not so inclined to up the ante on their original offer for Yahoo!. The loss of such a big contract was handwriting on the wall. I suspect that the free Flickr add-on was merely a last minute component to the Yahoo deal that had a slighly longer expiration date than that of the master marketing agreement. It may also have been something that Yahoo added on late in the game as an attempt to increase the stickiness of its original contract with SBC, to no avail. Even if Yahoo had no prior relations with SBC/AT&T, it does make business sense for AT&T to sever ties now. If a net neutrality debate re-ignites during Obama's administration, it is best that all ISP's (AT&T & otherwise) distance themselves as much as they can from content providers of all genres. The argument that content providers are getting away with murder by eating up ISP's internet capacity when the ISP's and content providers are sleeping the same bed won't make much of a case in front of the FCC. | |
|
|
| | | Re: AT&T Loosing Money AT&T DSL is available as a CLEC solution (powered by Covad) in many places in the United States still. They get the same "benefits" (portal, email, etc..) that AT&T Southeast ILEC users have gotten for a while (that AT&T acquired in the BellSouth merger) | |
|
| | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: AT&T Loosing Money Did the old ATT ever build out their own CLEC DSL network or always leased from Covad? I know CLEC ATT offered local voice, wouldn't that require colocating ATT CLEC switches in each CO? | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: AT&T Loosing Money the old ATT had DSL available when they took over Northpoint. I have no clue if they ever used it. but they did/still do have everything in place.
if ATT was smart they'd return all that equipment back on spin off their ISP business and go nationwide in a few minutes. | |
|
| |
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Yahoo! isn't doing so hot either, though. Both companies aren't doing so well, at&t comes to Yahoo! asking for a lower price, Yahoo! comes to at&t wanting more money, either way the inevitable result is features start getting dropped. | |
|
| | Ahhh this really sucks! I need AT&T to turn on Media Sharing then, I have uploaded so many pictures to flickr just so the other people in the house can see them and have told family and friends about it too so they can have convenient and accessible place to view photos my photos.
If they take away the pro them most of my pictures will be gone! I can stand friends and family accessing my internal server for a gallery and thankfully its not against the TOS and I don't have any limits yet but for the internal TVs to access them I'll need media share.
Hopefully it will be faster too, flickr over the boxes was horribly slow. | |
|
 jnc2000Premium
join:2003-08-05
East Palestine, OH | Flickr? Flickr? No thank you. I'll keep my smugmug please.
Its a disappointment to some that they are taking this away... yes -but then again you can't have everything free forever. | |
|
|
|  jtudorXm 60's On 6 FreakPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC | Re: They did not tell anyone... said by r81984:I never knew I had a free Flickr Pro account. They never advertised that. Looks like you are in former BellSouth territory, and if that is correct, you never got it, just like me. I kept waiting for AT&T to give that benefit to former BS customers after they got everything integrated, but it never happened. All the former AT&T customers got lower prices and more benefits, while we former bellsouth customers just got stuck.
--
Best of luck
"Do, or Do not, there is no try!" Yoda
| |
|
| | |
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN | And for the Vaseline You might be getting a monthly cap on your account as well.
(Less for more) | |
|
| | Mad as hell You know.. this just pisses me off. Will ditching this lower what I'm paying for DSL? Probably not, right? I don't even get the speed quoted for the Pro DSL I have. So yeah... mad right now.
-Adam
--
I'm blogging @ »www.chernow.org/blog | |
|
 OlegBellsouth FastaccessPremium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL | Flickr is a joke What a joke there are much better services like Flickr.Who want slow Flickr anyway  | |
|
 ssj4androidRedefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI
2 edits | They did not send out an email The latest email I have that mentions Flickr is from last year, saying "You have a Pro account, at no cost as long as you keep your AT&T Yahoo! service." I've since moved the account to U-Verse, but still have a sbcglobal.net email.
I do get the message saying my account will be downgraded when I actually login to Flickr, though.
Oh well, I don't actually use the pro aspect of it. | |
|
| | | Re: They did not send out an email said by ssj4android:The latest email I have that mentions Flickr is from last year, saying "You have a Pro account, at no cost as long as you keep your AT&T Yahoo! service." Given that statement it seems like Flickr should continue to offer "no cost" Pro accounts to AT&T Yahoo! subscribers. I'm sending e-mail to that effect to Flickr to that effect, maybe others should as well. | |
|
| | So much for keeping with Flickr The pro accounts lasted about a year or less. I have well over 500 pictures on flickr.
Maybe for the best anyways, Yahoo might sell it off and we loose all the photos forever. | |
|
|
|
·
