Thank God. I thought I was the only one who was seeing this. Chuck wrote:
>in the case of a number of the CLEC's, part of the problem was the old telco >monopoly that they had to fight. > >companies like COVAD, Northpoint, Concentric ( now part of XO ) to name a >few, were there firstest with the mostest while the telco's dragged their >feet on bringing DSL to their customer base. All the time racking up >revenues through their local loop charges. > >Now the telcos are in the market full tilt boogie, steamrolling the CLEC's >by taking advantage of their existing base, and more importantly, their >existing infrastructure. > >I've had DSL through Concentric/XO, and before that with Flashcom. In both >cases, new wire had to be used for me to get my line. The telco racked up >the installation charges, and the local loop revenue. > >Now, the telco is offering to come in, and throw DSL on my existing dial >tone line, something the CLEC's couldn't do. The result is that the telco >can charge slightly less for DSL, and they don't have any additional costs >in terms of wiring. > >the pure economics of it is that the telcos continue to have the distinct >advantage. They sat back, let the CLEC's do all the initial work, let the >CLEC's do all the initial marketing, and then they blew in and blew the >CLEC's out of business. > >Chuck > >""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >>That article taked about 1 problem, the problem almost every company had - >>grabing too much land and equipment with no customers or sustainable >>revenue. But that's also the problem every dot-bomb had. Thankfully the >>buble burst, the madness ended and took out the garbage. No company would >>stay in business that way. This dosen't mean that their services weren't >>wanted. Most every home who has a dial-up, most buisinesses that don't >> >have > >>DSL in their area are still waiting for the right company/technology to >> >come > >>by and at the right price. There's still a pretty large demand for >>high-speed internet. Now we just have to wait for the right technology to >>come by and offer good service at a good price. >> >>There is also another problem that was just as bad - the market was >> >flooded > >>with service providers. There was WAY too much supply and only moderatre >>demand. >> >>I still see plenty of growth in this industry, even excluding the service >>provider market. >>""nrf"" wrote in message >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> >>>For example, here is just one study from today: >>> >>>http://news.com.com/2009-1033-839335.html >>> >>> >>>""nrf"" wrote in message >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >>> >>>>Most indications seem to be that the networking industry, and the >>>>telco/provider segment in particular will greatly lag any general >>>> >>economic >> >>>>recovery. Nobody is predicting a serious telecom recovery this year, >>>> >>and >> >>>>many economists don't even predict one next year. Many big names have >>>>already gone down - Exodus, Excite@home, GlobalCrossing - and others >>>> >are > >>>>playing serious defense - Level3, MCIWorldcom, AT&T, Qwest. Huge >>>> >debt > >>>>payments continue to hang over the industry, and that problem won't be >>>>cleared up anytime soon. >>>> >>>>One dirty little secret of the provider industry is that very few >>>> >>>providers >>> >>>>actually make consistent profit on a true cash-flow basis. Just like >>>> >the > >>>>dotcoms, the providers can't figure out how to wring a decent amount >>>> >of > >>>>profit out from the Internet either. Sure, many providers will >>>> >claim > >>>>pro-forma profits, but after the Enron catastrophe, nobody wants to >>>> >see > >>>>pro-forma numbers, correctly preferring real cash-flow numbers. >>>> >>>>But all this talk might be a case of fiddling while Rome burns. All >>>> >>this >> >>>>talk of a future recovery in the long run doesn't really help anybody >>>> >>>right >>> >>>>now. Like the macro-economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the >>>> >>long >> >>>>run, we're all dead". Specifically, discussion of decent job >>>> >prospects > >>in >> >>>>the future doesn't exactly help a guy who needs to pay the bills now. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >>>> >>>>>It's the economy. When it picks up, so will the jobs. >>>>>""saktown"" wrote in message >>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >>>>> >>>>>>I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not >>>>>> >>(probably >> >>>>>not), >>>>> >>>>>>but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these >>>>>> >>networks >> >>>>that >>>> >>>>>>need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the >>>>>> >>industry >> >>>>can >>>> >>>>>>be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of >>>>>> >>>complex >>> >>>>>>networks to maintain. >>>>>> >>>>>>The fallacy in that logic is that in reality the number of >>>>>> >>networks, >> >>>>and >>>> >>>>>>their complexity, has indeed gone down in absolute terms. While >>>>>> >>the >> >>>>>>enterprise space still continues to maintain lukewarm demand, the >>>>>>telco/provider segment is nothing less than a disaster of epic >>>>>> >>>>>proportions. >>>>> >>>>>>I would contend that for every new box requisitioned by an >>>>>> >>enterprise, >> >>>>>>another 2 or 3 have been decommissioned by a dying provider. >>>>>> >Check > >>>out >>> >>>>>the >>>>> >>>>>>latest auction of Cisco gear from Excite@Home as a poignant >>>>>> >example. > >>>>>>Furthermore, much of the growth in the enterprise space requires >>>>>> >>very >> >>>>>little >>>>> >>>>>>skill to set up (i.e. install a single router to connect to an >>>>>> >ISP), > >>>>>whereas >>>>> >>>>>>provider networks tend to be tremendously complicated, therefore >>>>>> >>>>requiring >>>> >>>>>>great expertise to maintain, but of course now there is no more >>>>>> >>>provider >>> >>>>>>network to maintain. Hence, you have lots of highly skilled >>>>>> >network > >>>>dudes >>>> >>>>>>who got laid off from providers who are now competing for jobs >>>>>> >>running >> >>>>>>networks for enterprises. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>From: "John Green" >>>>>>>To: >>>>>>>Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:16 AM >>>>>>>Subject: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>seems all jobs have just vanished. well then who runs >>>>>>>>the networks and equipment ? it's real bad out there >>>>>>>>in the job market. >>>>>>>>any web sites to put the resume ? seems dice, monster, >>>>>>>>headhunter are not producing any results. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>how long is this goind to last ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>__________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>>>>>>Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games >>>>>>>>http://sports.yahoo.com _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35780&t=35611 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
