Rob,
You need to re-read the article. That is NOT what it said. It said that
Wall Street
Analysts were concerned that the telcos would not reap a decent return on
their investment. The telcos are not saying that, they are touting their
investment as the right thing to do to support and maintain their share
prices.
And what is this subsidy? A while back Dustin made the allegation
that Cable companies (not telcos) were given $200 billion dollars to provide
broadband to the U.S. I asked twice for substantiation but he never provided
it, for it just wasn't true. And as you can also read in this article, cable
companies have invested $90 billion dollars in network upgrades. This was
their shareholders money, no one else's. Do you have any idea how much money
cable companies pay to individual communities in franchise fees just for the
opportunity to build expensive network infrastructure and attempt to sell
service to its residents?
As to it not being about profit, I could not disagree more. Who is
it supposedly making such a decision? Certainly no one in control of enough
resources to make a substantial increase in broadband penetration. If so
they'd be gone pretty quickly for fiscal incompetence.
Make the U.S. more competitive? Look around you! It is other
nations who need to emulate us to attempt to compete with US. And as a
relative measure against ourselves, by all the parameters used to measure
the health of the U.S. economy (unemployment pct, cost of living, inflation,
# people employed, home ownership, inflation, GDP, etc.) the U.S. economy
has never been better or stronger.
So what was it you paid for and who did you pay it to? That said, of
course we want to continue to improve!
Respectfully,
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Rob Kelley
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:29 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts
> Question BellInvestments
>
>
> Again, disingenuous.
>
> Fiber to the Home, aka the Broadband Scandal, used taxpayer
> dollars as its funding. So the telco's say now they may not
> get enough profits from the subsidy? The dream of fiber
> wasn't corporate profit. It was about making the US
> competitive in the new millennium. It was about consumers
> paying for and getting the infrastructure they needed. And
> we still haven't gotten all we paid for.
>
> What have we paid for?
>
> Fast. Ubiquitous. Affordable. Open.
>
> Rob
>
>
> --- Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here's another good one on the wisdom of the telcos on-going FTTH
> > investments, the ROI cable is getting onthe $90 billion they have
> > already invested,and the possible effects net neutrality could
> > have on them. Thought provoking.
> > Jim
> >
> > > Analysts Question Bell Investments
> > >
> > > Read the full article at:
> > >
> >
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6316081.html?display=Bre
> aking+News&referral=SUPP
> >
> > Analysts Question Bell Investments
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> >
> > By Ted Hearn 3/14/2006 7:54:00 PMWall Street analysts told a
> > Senate committee Tuesday that the billions of dollars being spent
> > by AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. to compete with cable
> > might not produce a profit.
> >
> > "There is a high degree of skepticism that the substantial
> > investment underway at the [phone companies] to deliver broadband
> > networks to the home will deliver a satisfactory return on the
> > incremental investment," said Luke Szymczak, vice president of
> > JPMorgan Asset Management.
> >
> > AT&T and Verizon are installing high-capacity fiber lines to
> > rapidly deliver voice, video and data in a high-stakes battle with
> > cable.
> >
> > "The costs of these networks are far beyond what the returns of
> > the new services can provide," said Craig Moffett, VP and senior
> > analyst of U.S. cable and satellite broadcasting at Sanford C.
> > Bernstein & Co.
> >
> > The two analysts appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee,
> > which is expected to vote on a bill next month that would ease
> > phone-company entry into cable markets and perhaps include
> > network-neutrality safeguards.
> >
> > The battle between cable and the phone giants has put sharp
> > pressure on the stocks of both industries.
> >
> > Aryeh Bourkoff, managing director at UBS Warburg LLC, expressed
> > concern about the regulatory climate facing cable after the
> > industry invested more than $90 billion on network upgrades to
> > roll out digital TV and high-speed-Internet access.
> >
> > He referred to possible network-neutrality and a la carte
> > programming mandates, as well as less burdensome franchising
> > requirements on phone companies, as negatives for cable.
> >
> > "As media consumption over the Internet develops at a rapid pace,
> > I believe it is too early to introduce regulation on key issues
> > such as a la carte pricing and packaging and on net neutrality, as
> > the market is still in its early stages," Bourkoff said.
> >
> > Moffett, an opponent of network-neutrality mandates by government,
> > warned that if network owners were barred from creating a "fast
> > lane" on the Internet to generate more revenue to cover capital
> > expenditures, they would have to recover much, if not all, of
> > their cost from subscribers, whose monthly bills would likely rise
> > substantially.
> >
> > "Mandated net neutrality would further sour Wall Street's taste
> > for broadband-infrastructure investments, making it increasingly
> > difficult to sustain necessary capital returns, and it would
> > likely mean that consumers alone would be required to foot the
> > entire bill for whatever network investments do get made," Moffett
> > said.
> >
> > Investors dislike policy upheavals in Washington that distract
> > them from focusing on market fundamentals, said Kevin Moore,
> > wireline telecom analyst at Wachovia Securities.
> >
> > "We have enough to worry about in considering the rapidly changing
> > competitive and technological environment. In other words, we want
> > regulatory stability and certainty," Moore said.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Want to see more? Become a subscriber today and sign up for
> > > Multichannel Newswire, our daily email, FREE with your paid
> > > subscription:
> > > http://www.multichannel.com/subscribe
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > Un/Subscribe:
> > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> >
>
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe:
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release
> Date: 3/9/2006
>
>
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
