|
Scumscum (skm) n. 1. A filmy layer of extraneous or impure matter that forms on or rises to the surface of a liquid or body of water. 2. The refuse or dross of molten metals. 3. Refuse or worthless matter. 4. Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless. | |
|
| Time Premium Member join:2003-07-05 Irvine, CA |
Time
Premium Member
2010-Mar-25 2:39 pm
Re: ScumI usually reserve that word for lawyers, but this is a good use of it as well. | |
|
| | doublea join:2007-06-04 Rancho Cordova, CA |
doublea
Member
2010-Mar-26 12:21 am
Re: ScumVDSL reployment in 2010?
Add deploying VDSL in 2007 was ok, but now VDSL is adging, sure its faster. But companies need to make the leap to fiber. | |
|
| | mdrift join:2003-08-15 Spokane, WA |
to Time
said by Time:I usually reserve that word for lawyers, but this is a good use of it as well. Who do you think is lobbying for the funds? The lawyers for Qwest. | |
|
| n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY
1 recommendation |
to axiomatic
I would add:
Qwest: GO, TO, HELL!
Not only would they take taxpayer funds to build out the network, they would then charge those very same taxpayers to use it. If the taxpayers pay for it, they should own it! | |
|
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
to axiomatic
said by axiomatic:Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless. couldn't have described qworst better myself | |
|
|
Better..."Why provide a paved road when a dirt trail will do (after all, the horses will like it better)?" | |
|
| |
Re: Better...LMMFAO!!! Sad but true........................ | |
|
| Duramax08To The Moon Premium Member join:2008-08-03 San Antonio, TX |
to mod_wastrel
Why have high speed when dial up can do? (after all, it leads you to the same internet right?) XD | |
|
| |
to mod_wastrel
said by mod_wastrel:"Why provide a paved road when a dirt trail will do (after all, the horses will like it better)?" If thats the case then he should be fine with mininum wage and not the 12 million he got last year. | |
|
| |
to mod_wastrel
Then I guess mininum wage should do and not the pay increased 5 percent to $12 million in 2009 that Qwest CEO and Chairman Edward Mueller's.
Funny how that works | |
|
IowaMan Premium Member join:2008-08-21 Grinnell, IA |
IowaMan
Premium Member
2010-Mar-25 1:43 pm
When will Qwest DIE?If Qwest had any forethought, they would have thought about people dumping the expensive phone and using a cell phone but they didn't as, they are clearly a "why change lets keep doing business the way we have been for 100 year's" type of company. DSL? 1.5Mb doesn't cut it anymore and the 896K up forget that /end rant | |
|
| |
Re: When will Qwest DIE?Correction: 1.3 Mbps down, 700 kbps up. Qwest doesn't overprovision.
Seriously though, I agree that they're lackluster to say the least on their DSL service these days. Most areas are still stuck on ADSL.
By my calculations, Qwest is only willing to spend $200 or so per subscriber to push out more advanced HSI service. Granted, 12/5 for cheap (which all of Qwest's tiers up through 20/5 are) isn't bad, however it's telling that the company really doesn't want to invest to keep abreast of the current technology. | |
|
| | Asus RT-AC68 Ubiquiti NSM5
|
Re: When will Qwest DIE?said by iansltx:it's telling that the company really doesn't want to invest to keep abreast of the current technology. I think you have to draw a distinction between unwilling and unable. Qwest (nee USWest) was always the weak sister of the regional operating companies. The population density was far lower in their territory than any of the other regionals. That makes their return on capital investment far lower. Combine that with some critical mismanagement (financial and wireless), and Qwest can't raise the money to do anything. They'd be better off sold to someone better managed, but who would buy them? You get a bunch of expensive regulated wire with a declining user base to maintain and you inherit the low density that makes upgrades expensive. | |
|
| | | |
Re: When will Qwest DIE?CenturyLink seems to be pretty well off, and they're more rural on average than Qwest. The only big market I know of is Las Vegas (legacy Sprint/Embarq). CL is doing bonded ADSL2+ and FTTH in some places... | |
|
| | | | Asus RT-AC68 Ubiquiti NSM5
|
Re: When will Qwest DIE?said by iansltx:CenturyLink seems to be pretty well off, and they're more rural on average than Qwest. The only big market I know of is Las Vegas (legacy Sprint/Embarq). CL is doing bonded ADSL2+ and FTTH in some places... There's a scale factor involved, right? I haven't looked up the numbers, but I suspect that CenturyTel is a fraction the size of Qwest in lines or sq miles served. I have relatives in North Dakota, 60 miles from nowhere that will be getting fiber from their local coop this year as well. I'll bet that if you compared the number of VDSL homes served by Qwest to CenturyTel, they might be be pretty close. The problem is that Qwest is limited to financing any upgrades from internal cashflow (no one will lend them anything on commercial terms because of the poor business case). | |
|
| | | | | davoice join:2000-08-12 Saxapahaw, NC |
Re: When will Qwest DIE?Oh there are people who will loan them money on commercial terms... just at very high rates because Qwest is already so far in debt from previous mergers, acquisitions, poor performance and short-sighted cash management that there is a high probability the loans/financing would never be repaid in full. Sucks to be a telecom company that is highly leveraged and late paying your bills and vendors!
}Davoice | |
|
| | | | | | |
gordoco
Member
2010-Mar-27 12:23 pm
Re: When will Qwest DIE?said by davoice:Sucks to be a telecom company that is highly leveraged and late paying your bills and vendors! Sucks to be a CUSTOMER of a telecom company that is highly leveraged and late paying their bills and vendors. I wish Comcast would come to my neighborhood to provide choice and spur some competition. | |
|
| |
to IowaMan
I hear you IowaStudent loud and clear!! If anyone has read any of my previous comments about Qwest, they know I despise this company!! I've called repeatedly for service faster than 1.5Mbps and they NEVER tell you when it will come. To that end, you go FU*K yourself Qwest If the rumors are true, I hope Verizon buys them very soon and I can get FTTH. Oh yeah, I didn't know they stack sh!t that high!!! | |
|
|
Letter time...Start mailing those letters to the FCC and advise them of why Qwest does NOT deserve any federal funding for this. Overall it's just a bad investment. If anyone deserves it, it's the local governments that were trying to roll out a fiber network of their own. | |
|
| |
Re: Letter time...I've been doing that and I hope they (my local politicians, Senators) have heard my call. Sent some emails to the FCC too! | |
|
| | |
Re: Letter time...That's great. Everyone else needs to jump on board. The system does work, if enough people make use of it. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Letter time...Yeah, only "if" enough people jump on board. There are still too many people that are ignorant of the real issues with teleco's, cableco's, and the lack of competition of broadband. The problem is that too many have too many problems right now. My heart goes out to the people that are losing their jobs and homes. | |
|
2 edits |
Even when they do it right - they do it wrongI live in one of the couple of communities where Qwest actually deployed Fiber To The Home. With an upgrade to the top tier, I am promised only 10MB down (really? i get less than 8 and half from Qwest's own speedtest server down the block from me). But, how can they have the beachballs to offer faster broadband service to DSL, twisted pair copper customers -- than to FTTH customers? AND they advertise the DSL service as Fiber Fast. They would have to actually slow down the top few DSL service tiers to get my Fiber Slow Speed. And of course, I pay a lot more than the DSL customers too. To add insult to injury, I am locked into the service through a covenant in my HOA. Qwest deserves every financial headache they have and will get. | |
|
| |
Re: Even when they do it right - they do it wrongQwest is going through the changes of not evolving and adapting their business to the changing times. Plain and simple, either you adapt or you get left behind.
What's really sad is that the change was not an overnight thing. It took years and it was almost subtle. But this is the penalty you pay for not paying attention. | |
|
|
Honesty in irony...Does anyone else find it ironic that Qwest is so concerned about "the long-term harm to consumers" that they seemingly believe that the best thing for Qwest customers is to be served by someone else, hence "focusing on dressing up the company for possible sale."
Seems Qwest is basically saying... 'our customers would be better served if they weren't being served by us.'
Eh... maybe it's just me. | |
|
rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
This is what everyone wants...To all those that wonder why the government didn't do something about your HSI, this is what you get.
You wanted it. You got it. When will we ALL learn? Life isn't fair. Stop asking your neighbor, who had the good sense to not live in a flood plain, for money to help you rebuild your house that was washed away by the last flood. OK -- I realize this has nothing to do with HSI but the principle is the same. I'm not saying we could have all planned to build houses where there's good HSI but what we need is regulation, not corporate welfare.
If it costs $100/month for HSI because you live in a sparsely populated area of the country, THAT's LIFE! Hey, plenty of folks LIVE closer to work than you do and they don't spend as much on gas, cars and have more free time. Do you want the government to fund rocket sleds to your back door? The government is the people. They don't have any money that doesn't' get sucked from us. When you want the government to do something, you are asking your neighbors.
It's already ridiculous what the rest of us have paid and continue to pay just to provide dial tone to every postage stamp sized town in America. Enough! We need an HSI tea party.
In closing, I'm not saying the FCC or our government doesn't have a role to promote technology. They do and that's good for America. What we don't want is the government funding a regulated monopoly's plight because they made bad business decisions 15 years ago. | |
|
| dagg join:2001-03-25 Galt, CA 2 edits |
dagg
Member
2010-Mar-25 2:34 pm
Re: This is what everyone wants...i both agree and disagree with what you are saying.
government regulations are not going to help much in this situation simply because the telcos are going to (as has already happened in several cases) ask for exemptions and lobby to make those regulations more favorable to them. regulations just arent going to work.
the corporate welfare idea is also a super bad idea simply because we do not need the government spending money to pay for something that these companies should have done on their own.
personally, i think we need to let private industry come in and completely shake up not only HSI by installing fiber (either privately or in conjunction with municipalities at the local level) but also let them shake up a bunch of other stuff by offering other communication services (phone, wireless ect) and while we are at it, lets shake up payTV services such as cable and satellite by letting them provide those services as well and let the market decide what the prices should be.
if we would get the government out of the business of "protecting us to death" and back into the business of actually running, oh i dunno... THE GOVERNMENT... it would be a huge bloody mess for about 5 years and then things would start to shape up with real competition and real options.
i know, im a madman for even suggesting such an idea
/edit for clarity | |
|
| | |
Re: This is what everyone wants...said by dagg:i both agree and disagree with what you are saying. government regulations are not going to help much in this situation simply because the telcos are going to (as has already happened in several cases) ask for exemptions and lobby to make those regulations more favorable to them. regulations just arent going to work. the corporate welfare idea is also a super bad idea simply because we do not need the government spending money to pay for something that these companies should have done on their own. personally, i think we need to let private industry come in and completely shake up not only HSI by installing fiber (either privately or in conjunction with municipalities at the local level) but also let them shake up a bunch of other stuff by offering other communication services (phone, wireless ect) and while we are at it, lets shake up payTV services such as cable and satellite by letting them provide those services as well and let the market decide what the prices should be. if we would get the government out of the business of "protecting us to death" and back into the business of actually running, oh i dunno... THE GOVERNMENT... it would be a huge bloody mess for about 5 years and then things would start to shape up with real competition and real options. i know, im a madman for even suggesting such an idea /edit for clarity What "private industry" wants to come in and invest in such a long-term ROI project? And what "market" are you talking about? Have you ever heard of a "natural monopoly"? You keep using the term "shake up", as if that explains everything all on its own. The government's job is to promote the general welfare of the populace. Infrastructure buildouts is not something corporations are willing to do, so like rural electricity it seems to me like the laying of fiber should be a government project. | |
|
| | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: This is what everyone wants...I agree and the folks who live in those areas should buy into those coops. If running fiber to everyone's home isn't feasible because there will never be a return on investment, then do WISPs. We have a lot of technology that did not exist when rural telephone and electricity projects were implemented. Let's be smart this time.
My parents live on a farm with no chance of cable TV or DSL. They have satellite TV and a wireless ISP for HSI. It costs them $50/month for up to 500Kbps down and 128Kbps up but whenever I visit, my iPhone connects to their WiFi router and seems to work fine. Can I watch hi-res YouTube videos? No but it beats the heck out of AT&T's EDGE service in the area! | |
|
| | | | |
Re: This is what everyone wants...said by rradina:I agree and the folks who live in those areas should buy into those coops. If running fiber to everyone's home isn't feasible because there will never be a return on investment, then do WISPs. We have a lot of technology that did not exist when rural telephone and electricity projects were implemented. Let's be smart this time. My parents live on a farm with no chance of cable TV or DSL. They have satellite TV and a wireless ISP for HSI. It costs them $50/month for up to 500Kbps down and 128Kbps up but whenever I visit, my iPhone connects to their WiFi router and seems to work fine. Can I watch hi-res YouTube videos? No but it beats the heck out of AT&T's EDGE service in the area! Actually even during rural electrification people were experimenting with wind farms. The point is this swiss-cheese method of upgrading the US results in gross inefficiencies. Unless we upgrade everyone at the same time we won't reap the benefits of next-gen communications technology. In fact if you look at India, where rural electrification is highly decentralized, you see immediately how inefficient and ineffective it has been in many instances. A lack of central planning has resulted in a waste of resources on obsolete technology, and a dependence on coal provided from essentially one state. It's a mess. | |
|
| sonicmerlin |
to rradina
The only reason it might cost so much to provide rural bandwidth is because of the duopolistic pricing of middle-mile backhaul. Otherwise it is not so different from suburban or urban provisioning prices. The rest of your points are henceforth asinine. | |
|
| | ••••• |
| |
to rradina
I don't know what rock you crawled underneath from but the government isn't the people!!!! THE GOVERNMENT IS MORE LIKE CORPORATIONS!!!!! | |
|
| | ••••
|
Lark3po Premium Member join:2003-08-05 Madison, AL 2 edits |
Lark3po
Premium Member
2010-Mar-25 2:22 pm
Wow!"applying for $350 million in federal stimulus funds to help them deploy 12 to 40 Mbps VDSL service to about half a million homes, schools, businesses and hospitals" Was something about money being high but I suck at math so this isn't as interesting anymore... Edit: Math... Edit 2: Math again... Is it Friday yet? | |
|
| •••••••••••••• |
|
JasonOD
Anon
2010-Mar-25 2:52 pm
What Qwest really needs to do..Verizon wireless is all over their territory, why not take advantage of that and work out a deal with Verizon to get access to their LTE network in exchange for backhaul? Offer it as both a home & mobile broadband solution. It would be a far quicker and less expensive solution than putting VDSL cabinets in neighborhoods. Plus providing and supporting the bandwidth should give them enough leverage with Verizon to get a decent deal where they can stay competitive in areas where they overlap with Clearwire or other wireless providers. | |
|
| mdrift join:2003-08-15 Spokane, WA |
mdrift
Member
2010-Mar-26 4:54 am
Re: What Qwest really needs to do..said by JasonOD :
Verizon wireless is all over their territory, why not take advantage of that and work out a deal with Verizon to get access to their LTE network in exchange for backhaul? Offer it as both a home & mobile broadband solution. It would be a far quicker and less expensive solution than putting VDSL cabinets in neighborhoods. Plus providing and supporting the bandwidth should give them enough leverage with Verizon to get a decent deal where they can stay competitive in areas where they overlap with Clearwire or other wireless providers. Been bundling with Verizon for nearly 2 years. » www.qwest.com/residentia ··· ireless/ | |
|
|
too little too lateWhy spend 350 million on DSL when 350M on fiber (to another company besides QWEST) will do?
ALL the telcos have used up their good will on lobbying to maintain their MON/DUOpoly status at the expense of consumers AND on the backs of taxpayers for FAR TOO LONG!!! I'd rather give a 3rd party company a shot at millions in subsidies than the incumbents which have PROVEN time and again, no good deed goes un-lapped up by greedy white collar corporate types who write themselves MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR PAYCHECKS while screwing consumers, price gouging them to death and then pulling the wool over their eyes for so long when it comes to the companies cost of providing service versus making excessive profit.
I'd rather see 250,000 FTTP lines deployed than 750,000 vdsl lines deployed. DSL is antiquated technology and the companies making it should go out of business, IMO. Horse and Buggy equipment makers are only in very small shops these days mostly in rural villages or Quaker communities who shun all (most) things modern anyways. All of these electronics come from Asia nowadays.. virtually nothing is made in good old USA anymore. So, until some leadership about replacing copper networks with fiber networks is taken we will have a 3rd world communications swiss cheese network. Any new deployments should either overlay or completely rip up the copper and replace it with fiber. If it means installing new dedicated poles, then so be it. Out in the southwest where qwest is, they aren't exactly strapped for space in most municipalities. We're not talking about the northeast where space is at a commodity premium even in a post FIXED RATE/regulated energy industry economy. | |
|
| dagg join:2001-03-25 Galt, CA |
dagg
Member
2010-Mar-25 5:51 pm
Re: too little too late1. because the people that we entrust with running the government are too stupid to figure that out on their own. 2. they have only used up their goodwill with those they are intended to serve, not the politicians to whom they donate large campaign contributions effectively making the people they are supposedly service completely unimportant as far as their view of the amount of goodwill thats left. 3. dont bash on the greedy too much. there is a word for people who try to bring products to market with altruistic reasons.... they are called "unemployed". profit drives business, greed drives profit. the real trick is to keep greed in check with common sense and long term planning. companies like qwest let the green run unchecked.
and what many here would like to see is not whats in the best interests of the people in these areas being served. you are setting the stage for companies to be allowed to cherry pick their coverage which gives you what we already have in many places. those areas in which they are likely to not make what the unchecked greedy folks deem as a large enough ROI are going to be left out in the cold.
in the end, the only real way to fix the issue is to clear the path for new companies to come in and leave the old companies to either figure out how to compete or just leave them twisting in the wind until a more streamlined company can come in & buy the assets and start running said company correctly. | |
|
| | |
Re: too little too latesaid by dagg:1. because the people that we entrust with running the government are too stupid to figure that out on their own. 2. they have only used up their goodwill with those they are intended to serve, not the politicians to whom they donate large campaign contributions effectively making the people they are supposedly service completely unimportant as far as their view of the amount of goodwill thats left. 3. dont bash on the greedy too much. there is a word for people who try to bring products to market with altruistic reasons.... they are called "unemployed". profit drives business, greed drives profit. the real trick is to keep greed in check with common sense and long term planning. companies like qwest let the green run unchecked. and what many here would like to see is not whats in the best interests of the people in these areas being served. you are setting the stage for companies to be allowed to cherry pick their coverage which gives you what we already have in many places. those areas in which they are likely to not make what the unchecked greedy folks deem as a large enough ROI are going to be left out in the cold. in the end, the only real way to fix the issue is to clear the path for new companies to come in and leave the old companies to either figure out how to compete or just leave them twisting in the wind until a more streamlined company can come in & buy the assets and start running said company correctly. No private company will do rural fiber when its ROI is 10 or more years. We need government buildouts. | |
|
N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano Premium Member join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs |
N3OGH
Premium Member
2010-Mar-25 3:05 pm
Why is it cars all the time?Why is it ISP's are always making these wacky car comparisons all the time.
"Comcast is the BMW or blah blah blah"
"Why have a Rolls Royce when a Chevy will do".
Why not stop dumbing it down and start giving people real information? | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Mar-25 3:08 pm
Investors not happy with Qwest like you claim» Qwest Wants $350 Million From Uncle Sam To Deploy VDSL [74] commentsQwest has been very lax in upgrading their network, instead focusing on dressing up the company for possible sale. While that pleases investors who want an immediate return on their investment You are wrong. Investors are not happy with Qwest and their performance and business plan as can be seen with how they have driven the stock value in to the ground. » finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s ··· m&q=l&c=
And quoting Craig Moffet(an ANALYST) doesn't mean that investors agree with him.
| |
|
| •••• |
nonymous (banned) join:2003-09-08 Glendale, AZ 1 edit |
nonymous (banned)
Member
2010-Mar-25 3:28 pm
Go bankrupt or sell yourself off in parts alreadyThey sold their wireless division twice. Killed off there own VDSL IPTV service and resell DirectTV. Now they want government money to expand VDSL DSL. WHY??? There will not be a Qwest in a few years if the economy improves enough for a sell off. The CEO wants his golden parachute and he wants it now. If he can not get that maybe some government money will improve the bottom line enough to get him an even bigger bonus. Since Sol Trujillio allowed a nothing LD company Qwest to purchase USWest the end has just played itself out. Be done with them. Plus the employees crying over tack backs. IT IS NOT MA BELL anymore. You will be lucky if the worst is over. | |
|
TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY
1 recommendation |
Oh yes what a good investment Here is what we will get for 350 Million dollars, |
| |
|
| |
Re: Oh yes what a good investmentLOL That's some funny sh!t The sad part is that we're not to far from that | |
|
1 recommendation |
Go wireless
Anon
2010-Mar-26 12:24 am
Real InternetWhy spend fund on an obsolete technology. It is no doubt that the company is in financial trouble. They are loosing 6% of their income a year according to wall street records. They refuse to deploy fios to the home and businesses in the markets they have. The over priced pots non mobile service that nickles and dimes you for ever add-on. Customers will demand faster speeds for Internet TV, phone and more to come. We as a country cannot be left in the dirt when comes to the Internet. There is a price to pay in not having a very good connection to the Internet. If the fed gives out public monies to Qwest then WE should get FREE Broadband services in return. | |
|
|
I hope they get it!As an ISP, I hope that Qwest gets the ARRA funding. Why? Because that funding comes with major strings attached. In particular, any infrastructure funded by that money must be open to other carriers. So, I'll get to use anything they build to reach customers -- and also for backhaul. | |
|
|
|