Some Stock Jocks Still Really, Really Want FiOS To Fail Sanford Bernstein: Building New Networks 'A Losing Proposition' Tipped by HaloFans 
Back in 2006 you'll recall that some investment analysts insisted that Verizon's $24 billion FiOS investment was " doomed" before it even got out of the gate. The position reflected a general inability among telecom analysts to see the larger picture, such as the fact that Verizon needed to reinvest $24 billion into their network to remain truly relevant. Sanford Bernstein's Craig Moffett in particular has been very hard on FiOS, spending a good chunk of the last five years arguing that phone companies shouldn't bother to upgrade networks and that Verizon FiOS was destined to be a failure. That didn't happen. FiOS wound up being hugely popular among consumers, the fiber investment turned cash-flow positive in 2008 as the cost of installs dropped, and the upgrades put Verizon in a position to be competitive for decades. Though we've criticized Verizon heavily for hanging up on rural America, their decision to upgrade to fiber, offload unwanted DSL networks, then fill in the gaps with LTE (maybe even winning some ex-DSL customers back with fixed LTE) was a strategy that completely retooled the company as cable's top competitor in a relatively short period of time. However, the smaller companies Verizon has offloaded unwanted DSL markets to, like Frontier and Fairpoint, have struggled. Frontier in particular found it couldn't afford the high programming costs associated with the 100,000 FiOS TV customers they recently inherited from Verizon. As such, they recently decided to jack up both the installation fee and monthly rate by a huge amount, in the hopes that customers would flee to DirecTV. Oddly, in a piece over at Business Week, Craig Moffett is back again insisting that Frontier's trouble somehow means Verizon's FTTH bet was a bad idea: Frontier's proposed pricing moves suggest to Craig Moffett, a telecom analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein (AB), that FiOS does not turn a profit for Verizon, either. Moffett says his view is reinforced by Verizon's announcement in 2010 that it would effectively freeze its FiOS footprint. "It was a tacit admission that building new networks is a losing proposition," he says...Verizon spokesman Bob Varettoni counters that the fiber investment turned cash flow-positive in 2008. Moffett's logic is bizarre, in that he's suggesting that because a smaller telco like Frontier can't afford the same high programming costs as a massive company like Verizon, Verizon's fiber to the home build somehow must magically lose money. Moffett also oddly insists that because Verizon has frozen new FiOS installs, that somehow means that the entire investment wasn't worth it. Except as we've covered (and criticized) extensively, Verizon froze FiOS for a number of reasons -- including the hopes of getting new government USF subsidies for the next build phase, and to ramp up marketing in order to increase penetration levels in deployed areas. Verizon continues to expand FiOS in DC, NYC and Philly. Verizon had the money to invest back into the network and they did. Even if the company is still losing money on the short term, they'll reap the rewards over the next decade. While Verizon pauses between phase one of the deployment and the next phase, the cost of fiber to the home hardware continues to drop. Regardless of whether or not you like Verizon's business practices (and we're often critical of their lobbyists and persistent magic inability to bill consumers accurately), it's undeniable that FiOS was a good decision. The alternative was irrelevance. Moffett's solution for the nation's copper-bound phone companies is to sit on their hands and do nothing -- which one can only assume means his goal is to drive up the value of cable industry stocks, since sticking with vanilla DSL is allowing cable operators to eat the phone companies' lunch. If you want to be considered a next-gen broadband company, investing back into the network to make yourself competitive isn't a "losing proposition." What's a "losing proposition" is milking your aging (and more expensive to maintain) copper infrastructure, then watching as cable operators lure away your customers because you and your myopic investors were too timid to make the necessary upgrades. Stop being a coward and go long.
|
  mikepdDiscoveryPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-26
New Port Richey, FL
 ·Verizon FiOS
| There is one thing that you can give Moffett credit for and that is persistence. That is the only thing you can give him. You would think by now that he would change his tune just a bit.
Some people just refuse to change their position even when the facts are right in front of their eyes.
I guess agenda is more important than solid information to Moffett to pass on to his clients.
--
Always Reach Beyond Your Grasp | |
|  | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: There is one thing that you can give Moffett credit for and said by mikepd:that is persistence.
It's not persistence, it's stubbornly refusing to admit he was wrong. Except for wireless (where ownership is shared with Vodafone) Verizon would have been irrelevant and the cable companies would have been eating their non-wireless lunch without FiOS. | |
| | | | | Re: There is one thing that you can give Moffett credit for and On top of that, many cable scribers hate their cable companies so much that they can't wait to jump to FiOS or U-verse. The first one that becomes available, that cable company will see a mass exitos. | |
| | |  C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ | said by Sammer:said by mikepd:that is persistence.
It's not persistence, it's stubbornly refusing to admit he was wrong. Except for wireless (where ownership is shared with Vodafone) Verizon would have been irrelevant and the cable companies would have been eating their non-wireless lunch without FiOS. Don't you know that's SOP for corporations now? Just look at the legal battles Sony has had in the last ten or so years. Even when they blatantly stole Immersion's rumble technology for the DualShock controllers, they still insisted that it was their technology and that they had it for years in-house before releasing it to the public. Then of course, when the ps3 came around (after having to pay out about >$92 million in back fees and licensing), they wanted to argue that the motion sensing of the Sixaxis suxaxis wouldn't work with rumble. Then maybe a year or two later... dual shock 3's for ps3. And that's just one (of many) examples.
It's people like this that really do not deserve to be running companies of any kind, or managing other people. Yet these are the same kinds of assholes that then get to make the business decisions that screw over anyone and everyone they can get away with.
--
Because, f*ck Sony | |
|
|  GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | said by mikepd:Some people just refuse to change their position even when the facts are right in front of their eyes.
A few of us had a conversation just the other day on this, where a colleague of mine cited a study (and I can't for the life of me remember where it is) that essentially says when someone is a hardliner for a specific position (be it political, religious, whatever) in the face of facts which prove them wrong they only dig in deeper.
I have to admit I've never looked up his associations but does he actually have connections/investments in cable which would certainly dictate the position? I believe the analysts are required to disclose that now... | |
| | |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: There is one thing that you can give Moffett credit for and Moffett has credibility on par with Baghdad Bob. I couldn't wait to get Fios when it came here. That was over a year and a half ago. By far one of the best values for my money of anything I spend my cash on. I love Fios, and I've had nothing but a positive experience with their service.
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
| | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Keep in mind the purpose of Stock Analysts... Remember, their main job isn't to be right, it's to generate churn. As long as what they say causes people to buy and sell stocks, over and over, their employers are getting the commissions, and all is good. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
| Re: Keep in mind the purpose of Stock Analysts... said by PDXPLT:Remember, their main job isn't to be right, it's to generate churn. As long as what they say causes people to buy and sell stocks, over and over, their employers are getting the commissions, and all is good.
And this right here is the failure of our form of capitalism. It's no longer about what is right or what is efficient or effective or anything positive.. it's only about making more money at the expense of others. | |
| | | | | | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: Keep in mind the purpose of Stock Analysts... Pardon my language, but.
A-FUCKING-MEN.
The quality of individual our business schools are turning out these days is just terrible. There's no sense of stewardship anymore, no sense of responsibility. Just make a buck, make it as fast as you can, and anyone's expense.
It's like America has become the all Enron, all the time show.
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
| | | | | | | It is called the Tolstoy Syndrome. I "borrowed" the following from
»thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/20···yndrome/
Tolstoy Syndrome is a description of a behavior of humans who ignore the truth despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.[1] The behavior is named after a quote from Count Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910):
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life”.
A related Tolstoy quote is “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” | |
|
| | Stock positions Would love to see Moffet's stock holdings. There is no way he can believe what he is saying and not have some finiancial reasoning behind it. | |
| BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Fios has done incredibly well This guy is an idiot. You might expect an investment like FTTH to take 10 years or more to have an ROI, and even then it's highly necessary. For it to become cash-flow positive in a matter of a couple of years is just tremendous and shows that these analysts have no clue what they're talking about.
Cable has a nice, slow upgrade path that starts with 860mhz, then offers a nice buffet of expanded basic analog reclamation, full analog reclamation, SDV, and 1ghz, but the telephone companies had and have the choice of fiber or become irrelevant. | |
| | | | Re: Fios has done incredibly well the issue with FiOS is and VZ will admit; their uptake in customers is EXTREMELY low. It's actually lower than what they projected. Why? People do NOT want to switch. It's more per month to some; they want to keep their copper landline (and with FiOS they can't always), they'll lose their options at EVER changing companies if they're unhappy with VZ service (unless they go to cable). See the problems?
The ROI is just because of those issues I said. And that's why EVERYTHING with that is on hold. They need to get more people to sign up before they'll even build anymore out than what they've already done.
VZ also has (and its been cited on here within Karl's articles) that they have a clause that says they can cancel their TV service if they don't get a certain percentage of customers signing up. And that day may come for them faster than what people think. Especially with all of the claims of "cord cutting". VZ will lose more money on TV than they will if they'd focus on just doing telephone and HSI and bringing in someone else to do TV or offer straight IPTV (like ATT) and just send customers Ethernet STBs and not worry about anything else. Once their connected to the FiOS HSI TV would work fine- hell they could get ANY customer across the country at that point as their service would NOT be service based. | |
| | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
4 edits | Re: Fios has done incredibly well Verizon is adding 200-300,000 FioS subscribers every quarter !! What are you talking about !!!?
LMAO the ignorance.
last quarter:
quote:
197,000 net FiOS Internet and 182,000 net FiOS TV customer additions; 4.1 million total FiOS Internet customers and 3.5 million total FiOS TV customers.
Yea , "People do NOT want to switch." hahaha
»newscenter.verizon.com/press-rel···and.html | |
| | | | | | Re: Fios has done incredibly well Hey Boi, I like how you have ignored my post. As you think "People do NOT want to switch" , why dont you start counting from 0 to 3,500,000 . I'll be back in 10 years to see if your finished. Have fun !
lol | |
| | | | | | | Re: Fios has done incredibly well BOI?
lol | |
|
| | | | Short of moving away or being foreclosed on, no one every cancels their Fios service. It's pure gold! | |
| | | | | said by hottboiinnc:the issue with FiOS is and VZ will admit; their uptake in customers is EXTREMELY low. It's actually lower than what they projected. Why? People do NOT want to switch. It's more per month to some; they want to keep their copper landline (and with FiOS they can't always), they'll lose their options at EVER changing companies if they're unhappy with VZ service (unless they go to cable). See the problems?
The ROI is just because of those issues I said. And that's why EVERYTHING with that is on hold. They need to get more people to sign up before they'll even build anymore out than what they've already done.
VZ also has (and its been cited on here within Karl's articles) that they have a clause that says they can cancel their TV service if they don't get a certain percentage of customers signing up. And that day may come for them faster than what people think. Especially with all of the claims of "cord cutting". VZ will lose more money on TV than they will if they'd focus on just doing telephone and HSI and bringing in someone else to do TV or offer straight IPTV (like ATT) and just send customers Ethernet STBs and not worry about anything else. Once their connected to the FiOS HSI TV would work fine- hell they could get ANY customer across the country at that point as their service would NOT be service based.
Uh... FIOS is why Verizon has been able to maintain their landline subscriber numbers. No idea where your info is from. | |
| | | |  DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8
2 edits | Re: Fios has done incredibly well said by sonicmerlin:Uh... FIOS is why Verizon has been able to maintain their landline subscriber numbers. No idea where your info is from.
What the F!@# are you smoking again? Verizon's been bleeding landine subscribers for years.
A simple Google search will bring up countless articles showing the loss numbers:
»www.google.com/search?q=Verizon+···scribers
VZ's own financials show as much:
»investor.verizon.com/financial/quarterly/
12/31/02 they had 57,974,000 switched access lines
12/31/07 they had 39,883,000 switched access lines
12/31/10 they had 26,001,000 switched access lines
They've lost landline customers every year for the last 8 years atleast.
Do you ever research the crap you spew?
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% reliability isn't enough sometimes. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Fios has done incredibly well The peak of the dialup era was 2002. Everyone and their mother had a 2nd line. Compounded with cellphone adoption, and sales of rural areas, these numbers arent all that surprising.
Over a few more years, these numbers will stabilize. | |
| | | | | | DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8 | Re: Fios has done incredibly well said by ITALIAN926:The peak of the dialup era was 2002. Everyone and their mother had a 2nd line. Compounded with cellphone adoption, and sales of rural areas, these numbers arent all that surprising.
Over a few more years, these numbers will stabilize.
I realize that, but "a few more years, these numbers will stabilize" is a far cry from Sonicmelin's claim of "FIOS is why Verizon has been able to maintain their landline subscriber numbers"
Sonicmerlin likes to toss out statements that fly in the face of reality, frequently making claims that are false, to back up his arguments which are questionable.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% reliability isn't enough sometimes. | |
| | | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Fios has done incredibly well Does anyone really care about landlines anymore? Voice is becoming so commoditized with cell phones, Skype, and the like, that the long distance revenue on the remaining landlines is a thing of the past. TV and internet are where the real money is today. I don't even know how AT&T can stay profitable on the landline side, as they used to make most of their money off of long distance. Verizon can offer landlines cheaply in Fios triple play, as the ONT already handles it along with the TV and internet service. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Fios has done incredibly well Landlines? Yes. I hate that term though. Its should be HOUSELINES. Most families still have one to cover everyone in the household, and to cut down on cell minutes.
Does it matter if its delivered VoIP or Analog? They both serve the same purpose.
quote:
I don't even know how AT&T can stay profitable on the landline side, as they used to make most of their money off of long distance.
The old AT&T youre speaking of no longer exists. They were gobbled up by local telephone service SBC , but SBC chose to keep the name. | |
| | | | | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: Fios has done incredibly well SNET and then SBC did the same thing: they made the dough off of the long distance. AT&T can be traced through the various companies, although I'm most amused by AT&T Wireless, which was bought by Cingular and then became AT&T Mobility. Go figure. | |
|
| | | | As usual, hottboiinnc tells it like it is. (the man knows his stuff...)
Why would people want to risk an uncertain future with FIOS if they can keep their future locked in with AT&T, or equivalent service with proven copper technology.
12 - 24 mbits is enough, people know for a fact that 30 mbits+ is just a gimmick with no real world use... ever. (12 is really good, and 24 is exactly as much as people will ever need)
And i'm sure people are very aware of the risk of losing service from Verizon. That is definitely what is keeping them from switching there, they are very informed when it comes to those matters, that and obviously the risk of losing the superior copper line (power outages won't affect that copper phone line ever, or run out of batteries)
People want to keep copper instead of fiber, because copper has been around for a longer time, and it's proven technology.
Who in their right mind would risk losing that, to something that costs so much money to deploy and takes so much time to fix if someone messes with it and is of course not nearly as mature, therefor unproven tech.
I'll tell you who:
NOBODY.
FIOS is doomed to fail, they don't even have caps in place to prevent congestion.
AT&T does (winning), therefor their service will be tip top compared to Verizon's which gets bogged down by heavy user bandwidth hogs.
Comcast already has caps in place, and i wouldn't be surprised at all if Time Warner followed, since their network would be at a disadvantage if they let the data hogs slow down the network.
Not saying Verizon won't see caps at some point, but they are so desperate that they would rather offer their customers a bogged down "unlimited" experience than a smoother than silk capped service.
Well at least for now, if Verizon sees everyone cracking down on congestion, they'll have no choice but to do the same so that they don't lose any customers due to network congestion. | |
| | | |
3 edits | Re: Fios has done incredibly well said by FandBal:As usual, hottboiinnc tells it like it is. (the man knows his stuff...)
Why would people want to risk an uncertain future with FIOS if they can keep their future locked in with AT&T, or equivalent service with proven copper technology.
How is that horsedrawn carriage you are riding to work doing and do you get any issues with your coal powered generator to run your PC when posting this crap ?
How is your ebook piracy crusade going ? Any luck with making anyone use 2400 bps modems to join your cause ? You should have no problem, they are great proven tech. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Fios has done incredibly well Theres an ignore button. | |
|
| | | Brak710
join:2011-02-02
Pittsburgh, PA | You have to be a troll, this whole post is too idiotic.
I like how you think Verizon FIOS will be crippled by high-bandwidth users. Guess what? Unlike most other systems, FIOS is actually undersold. They could do 75/38mbit to ALL customers on a node CONSTANTLY. There's only 32 subscribers, too, and with node upgrades, they will be able to do even more traffic in the future no problem. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Fios has done incredibly well All his/her posts are like that. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| said by Brak710:They could do 75/38mbit to ALL customers on a node CONSTANTLY.
But can the CO and back office infrastructure handle that?
My Verizon DSL is 10/1 on paper but I've already seen evenings where it tops out at 3.5mbit/s and my ping times go to hell. Clearly there is not enough backhaul from my CO to the cloud. Very disappointing, particularly since I left Time Warner because of this exact same problem only to discover that Verizon has it as well.
Don't get me wrong, I love my DSL connection and it IS better than my old cable one but why can't I get 100% of the bandwidth that I'm paying for? What's stopping them from lighting up some more fiber to my CO? Nothing as far as I can see, other than the fact that my area isn't a major market for them (or Time Warner for that matter) and they have zero incentive.
FYI, I just did a speedtest at 11pm on a Saturday with my "10 to 15mbit" DSL service and got 2.7mbit/s down and 0.91mbit/s up. Thanks Verizon. Why am I paying $60/mo for this again? | |
| | | | | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | He's not a troll, he's Craig Moffet !
lmao | |
|
| | |  NY TelPremium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3
 ·AT&T CallVantage
| said by FandBal:As usual, hottboiinnc tells it like it is. (the man knows his stuff...)
He does? This coming from a guy who emphatically stated day s before the iPhone was released: "You will never see the iPhone on Verizon".
Sounds a lot like Moffett logic to me. | |
|
| | | | said by hottboiinnc:the issue with FiOS is and VZ will admit; their uptake in customers is EXTREMELY low. It's actually lower than what they projected. Why? People do NOT want to switch.
Everyone around here HATES Comcast with a passion, they would switch in a heartbeat. | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by hottboiinnc:the issue with FiOS is and VZ will admit; their uptake in customers is EXTREMELY low. It's actually lower than what they projected. Why? People do NOT want to switch. It's more per month to some; they want to keep their copper landline (and with FiOS they can't always), they'll lose their options at EVER changing companies if they're unhappy with VZ service (unless they go to cable). See the problems?
It's not extremely low considering how short of time FiOS has been around. They want 40% which actually is quite high for an overbuilder and in a few of the places where FiOS has been around the longest they have actually reached that. Many people do want to switch but Verizon clearly underestimated the lengths cable companies (including losing money on some customers) would go to fight back. It's also not true that FiOS subscribers can never change providers because Verizon has stopped the practice of removing the copper drop in most places and at least in some states such as PA they would have to replace it (at Verizon's expense) even if they did. | |
|
| BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| @hotboilnnc: I don't think it's undersold because people are afraid of losing options, since they don't lose any (landlines in a Fios areas are still Verizon), it's either because consumers are lazy or just don't get the HD compression issue, or the need for more internet speed. The % uptake is relatively low, but they are adding subs, and when people get it, in general, they LOVE it.
@FandBal: There is never enough bandwidth. Have you ever used an 80mbit internet connection? I have, at my school where some of the wireless is that fast. It's pretty insane to have a whole podcast downloaded in like 30 seconds.
43/35 unlimited fiber internet? Non re-compressed HD? Landlines seem rather moot with that kind of stuff. The fiber is passive, so as long as both ends have power, the phone line will be fine, and you can always tack another UPS on there.
You can't do math. Verizon is delivering 2.4gbps to 32 customers. That's a MINIMUM of 75mbps of unshared bandwidth PER SUB.
@Brak710: Thankfully someone can do math!
I think the only real valid question is did Verizon make the right move by going with QAM and not IPTV? Apparently they are just about out of QAM slots. What I don't understand, however, is why they claim they need IPTV now. It seems like, given the viewership numbers on a lot of channels, they could just throw three or four 32-sub strands onto an SDV switch have unlimited channel capacity indefinitely without having to deal with TV traffic on the IP side (other than VOD). | |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
 ·T-Mobile US
| Sounds like that stock jock got nervous jock itch from FIOS and community fiber projects.
All they care is high short-term investment - getting rich quick. They are addicted gamblers. If they were to decide on building cities and highways we would have no interstate highways (because state highways will take you everywhere), no stop lights at intersections, potholds on roads, buildings falling to the ground and whorehouses every two blocks in cities. | |
| | | | Re: Sounds like that stock jock Or it would be even worse than that. Every city would have a dream section for about 2-5% of the population with the best engineered streets, bridges, airport, the best schools in the world with a 20 foot high wall topped with armed guards. And then the rest of the city outside that would be ghetto slums with no sewer, no clean water, mud holes for roads, no schools and it would be completely the fault of those people outside the wall for having to live that way despite that they would work 16 hours a day for the people inside the wall. And the people inside the wall would have a 6 to 8 hour work day with a high spire office, gourmet lunches, wine breaks with cheese at 3 and golf cart excursions every morning to the golf course. And then again of course, the people outside the wall are completely expendable as they would never have access in any way to the hospital within the wall. They are animals after all and despite that they work their behinds off for the people in the wall, nothing in terms of their own well being has anything to do with the people inside the wall. Ahh, bliss isn't it. It would be a bit like a modern high tech version of the local lords and serfdom of middle ages past. | |
| | | | | Re: Sounds like that stock jock And of course, the people inside the wall would have their religious texts to absolutely support their moral position for why this arrangement is correct. Their text would make it absolutely the creator's will that this is how everyone should be and live. Eternal bliss according to the local religious congregrations and enforced with their "children of the light" in the local constabulary. | |
|
 MerinXCrunching for CuresPremium
join:2011-02-03
kudos:1
·Shaw
| Moffet is a tard Honestly if he could not see the advantage to having the best network possible running VOIP TV NET and home security over one line that can ezly handle the traffic needs of the future rather then force UBB to try and fix a problem created on purpose for profits then it just shows how clueless he is.
Honestly listening to him is like listening to jim cramer after all his epic fuck ups like Bear Stearns and others that made it onto the daily show. Sure he will still be right about investing in netflix but even i could tell you that. Heck once the international launch hits it will go up at least 40-50 bucks a share.
Moffet is clearly from the mentality of milk older investments and charge more then they are worth rather then advancement and progress, and that does not work in the tech world. Perhaps his myopic view of short term profits like UBB at the expense of long term loyalty and customer satisfaction work for him(getting attention with stupidity is hard right?) but for a major business and providers in tech fields that require long term customers to pay for their product his views are short sited and down right gouge based rather then offering a better product.
If ATT new fiber to node uverse upgrades can not handle the supposed peak hour loads then clearly Verizon going the last extra mile for service was the right move. Unless of course your interests are short term stock gains in companies that would rather save money then invest in what is needed and use UBB to compensate for their lack of investment. As well as control over traditional media broadcasting and content over free online content with way less ads or none at all(go netflix booo hulul plus) | |
| | | Cash flow positive does not mean much As soon as you stop doing extensive installs you are going to become cash flow positive because you stop spending money on installs and you have revenue from customers.
This does not mean you have recuperated your investment or made a profit. | |
| | GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | Re: Cash flow positive does not mean much said by Automate:As soon as you stop doing extensive installs you are going to become cash flow positive because you stop spending money on installs and you have revenue from customers.
This does not mean you have recuperated your investment or made a profit.
If the quote is correct they said they turned positive in 2008. Then they halted the builds in 2010. So...seems it was generating some profit there, no?
Unless all the dates are wrong. | |
| |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by Automate:As soon as you stop doing extensive installs you are going to become cash flow positive because you stop spending money on installs and you have revenue from customers.
This does not mean you have recuperated your investment or made a profit.
That's true. The real question is when will the investment have recovered its capital costs and start being positive to the bottom line.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88 | |
| | | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Re: Cash flow positive does not mean much And, an even better question is:
If the capital has been spent, why worry about when, or if Verizon is going to recover their losses.
Let the share holders worry about that, consumers could care less about them.
In the meantime you get to use their really expensive network for almost the same price as obsolete copper services.
I would say the same for their LTE service, specially since it's so new you're pretty much guaranteed better than U-verse speeds for the most part. (specially when it comes to uploads)
However, the ridiculously low caps and insane prices won't let me do so. | |
|
| | ya know what?! SCREW THEM, this isn't the OIL industry where monopolies can't be BROKEN UP and/or diversitfied easily provided there are ample abuses such as usage based billing and price gouging.
AT&T is skating on thin ice (as it is) and summer's coming! | |
| | | | Re: ya know what?! skating on thin ice? explain? Anti-trust? They won't be broken up for anti-trust. You have options for HSI providers if you're not happy. You have to NOT have options in order for it to become anti-trust. Nobody says you can't move from DSL with T and go to a Wireless service (TMO, VZ, Sprint/Clear, etc), or to another DSL provider that resells ATT's last mile. or even to Cable. The fact is there are options and they will not be broken up nor fined. Hell the FCC can't even touch them currently on this issue. Maybe the FTC can- but that's even pushing it due to the way their TOS/AUPs are written. You do NOT purchase access to the Internet; you LEASE access to their PRIVATE network which is just connected to the Internet. They can kill that connection at anytime since its not what you pay for. | |
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by tmc8080:SCREW THEM, this isn't the OIL industry where monopolies can't be BROKEN UP and/or diversitfied easily provided there are ample abuses such as usage based billing and price gouging.
AT&T is skating on thin ice (as it is) and summer's coming!
Bad analogy. The oil industry is not a monopoly.
Telco and CableCo are delivering 10x the broadband value today that they did 10 years ago. Can you cite even one case of "price gouging" ?
How does UBB harm the consumer, if it offers the average subscriber a lower bill? (And yes, it does.) | |
| | |  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: ya know what?! said by elray:said by tmc8080:SCREW THEM, this isn't the OIL industry where monopolies can't be BROKEN UP and/or diversitfied easily provided there are ample abuses such as usage based billing and price gouging.
AT&T is skating on thin ice (as it is) and summer's coming!
Bad analogy. The oil industry is not a monopoly. Telco and CableCo are delivering 10x the broadband value today that they did 10 years ago. Can you cite even one case of "price gouging" ? How does UBB harm the consumer, if it offers the average subscriber a lower bill? (And yes, it does.) UBB does NOT offer a lower bill to any one
prices will stay the same or get higher on top of overcharges
has UBB ever lowered ANY ONES CELL BILL? | |
|
 Duramax08Win8 sucksPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX |  People pay money
| |
| | Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | The writting was on the wall. "...like Frontier and Fairpoint, have struggled. "
I other words they were snookered into buying a pig in a poke.
| |
| | | So... Just rest on laurels for the rest of forever until some other business replaces you... | |
|
1 edit | Is it party time already? I hope FiOS succeeds. I would hate to see the cable guy be the only choice in town. But I frankly don't think it is party time at VZ just yet. They have reached 15.7M premises, and have subscribed broadband to only 1 in 4, and TV to maybe 1 in 5. They still need to double their current subscriber base, which at their current growth rate it will take them about another 5 years to accomplish, and reach the ROI of 11% that they projected. And that is giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are actually seeing incremental earnings of $39 per subscriber per month - which they are certainly not getting on the $85/mo triple play promo for the first year subscriber - and won't ever get on internet only customers either [and how do cord cutters play with this scenario and future profitability and growth - I can't see this working if they don't earn off the TV segment which you guys say is dying a slow death]. If they aren't making the $39 per sub, then they need even greater market share than simply doubling what they have now.
Turning a profit and earning enough to post 11% per anum on $23B is a large swath of land to cover (the 11% is what they claimed they would get to investors when this whole shebang started). And let's not forget that they cherry-picked these neighborhoods. I doubt that this is causing anyone at VZ to be breaking out the champagne just yet, but it is so nice of them to be giving it a whirl, for our sake if not for the investors. | |
|  Rogue WolfReally Ties The Room Together
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | Craig Moffett is a one-note trumpet. Moffet and his ilk believe that all companies should be run towards the solitary goal of maximizing their stock prices. Why? So that people like him can make fortunes off of trading them. Screw the customers; they only exist to be pumped dry by as many fees for the absolute rock-bottom level of service as possible.
If there were any justice in this world, Mr. Moffett would be forced to live a year where every vital service he depended on took his phiosophy to heart. I bet he wouldn't last a month.
--
Justin Timberlake brought sexy back. I'm putting it away again.
This content may not be retransmitted by your cable company without significant rate increases! | |
| |  tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:8
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Craig Moffett is a one-note trumpet. said by Rogue Wolf:Moffet and his ilk believe that all companies should be run towards the solitary goal of maximizing their stock prices. Maximizing investor value (i.e. stock price) in the long term is the CEO's fiduciary responsibility.
The problem is Wall Street in general and analysts like Moffett drive CEO's to maximize short term profitability at the expense of long term survival. It is about the next quarter when it should be about investing in the next decade.
/tom | |
| | | Rogue WolfReally Ties The Room Together
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | Re: Craig Moffett is a one-note trumpet. This is what I was trying to get at (should've been more specific though, so thanks for clarifying). A company whose stocks are high because they offer great service and value deserves it; Moffet's ideals, however, would destroy any company with any sort of competition in its market. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Short Term Profits are what will ruin America more than it already is.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 WiseOldNerdDe gustibus non est disputandumPremium
join:2001-11-25
Phoenix, AZ
·Cox HSI
·Charter
| Moffet Mentally Ill There is a psychiatric label for those who keep repeating the same actions over and over when nothing changes and the result is always they same. Craig is obviously a member of that delusional group.
Also, we should ask him for a disclosure of who is actually paying for his continuously delusional statements.
--
My perception is REALITY | |
| | NY TelPremium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3 | Re: Moffet Mentally Ill I think you are way off base referencing mental illness. I believe it could be just "sane incompetence".... | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Calling Moffett mentally ill isn't fair... to the mentally ill. | |
|
 wmcbrine213 251 145 96
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
kudos:1 | Dumb? Nah. I don't see Craig Moffett as either dumb or delusional, like some commenters above. Rather, I see him as evil.
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 | |
| | | I love my FIOS It is the only solution that really competes with Cable in this area. I could go back to DirecTV/DISH and Comcast, but neither the picture nor the speed are comparable to my 30/30 connection.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time. | |
|  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | The cold hard facts. Only 39% of the subscribers who can get FiOS subscribe. The great unwashed doesn't know or care about FTTP. In fact most think CATV had been doing that for years. | |
| |
See 15 replies to this post | |
| | FIOS since 2005... Hopefully soon FIOS tv as well. I'm getting extremely tired of poor signal messages from my ccomcrap cable boxes
- A
--
LETS GO METS! | |
| Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Pacific Bell failed, withdrew from FIOS Pacific Bell in Pacific Beach CA (SBC Global) failed, and withdrew (scrapped) the installation. Problem was, the residents and Business Owners in La Jolla CA were left with an aged tie cables, that had bad pairs because of the Salt water corrosion. Fiber seemed the better alternative, but the backup power structures proved too costly, and required Natural Gas to power the generators. | |
| | | |  alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA |  Re: Pacific Bell failed, withdrew from FIOS
| |
|
djcrazy
join:2009-08-05
Minneapolis, MN | I wish they would deploy it here. It would make up for the crappy cell phone service I get from them. | |
|
| |
|
|
