""Chuck"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > in the case of a number of the CLEC's, part of the problem was the old telco > monopoly that they had to fight.
Maybe it was part of the problem, but not the whole problem. True, the RBOC's were hindering the DSL CLEC's. But that doesn't explain the financial failures of international network backbone providers (Global Crossing), the biggest cable-modem ISP (Excite@Home), or the biggest hosting service (Exodus). Or the downward spiral of many of the other big providers. Now you might say that all these companies made mistakes, and surely they did. On the other hand, I believe it is the case that even if these companies had executed perfectly, they still would have failed, although I agree they would have lasted longer. The biggest factor contributing to their decline is that the demand wasn't there to sustain them. If there had been as much demand as these providers thought there was, then I believe that most of these providers would be doing quite well, mistakes or no. > > 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. On the other hand, consider this. Not only is the DSL CLEC model flawed financially , I believe the entire DSL business model, whether by a RBOC or a CLEC, is fatally flawed as it exists today. Even RBOC's report miniscule profits (not revenue, but profits) from DSL, so if even the RBOC's can't make it work, how exactly were these CLEC's supposed to make money? Or, as stated eloquently in Network Magazine :"... the RBOCs uniformly report that DSL deployment is, to quote SBC, "revenue dilutive." So here's the question: Can the wholesaler of another company's network elements profit from selling a service that the original company couldn't profitably exploit? We don't have a provable residential profit model for broadband, and we're asking carriers to fund an expensive experiment to find one...." http://www.networkmagazine.com/article/NMG20020206S0018 So basically DSL as it exists doesn't really work financially, at least not at the price points it's being offered at. RBOC's make good profit from dialtone and from expensive leased lines like T-1's and up. But not from DSL, and looks like RBOC's only continue to offer DSL as a defensive maneuver against cable-modems, hoping that in the future they will be able to unlock some profit. But they aren't exactly scrambling to roll out more DSL, if the SBC cancellation of Project Pronto is any indication. > > 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. But they still have to maintain their CO's with DSLAM's and backhaul lines. And, the worst part of all, they have to send out technicians out on expensive truck rolls when something bad happens to a DSL connection ( which is quite often). The simple fact is that no company has ever generated a consistent profit from DSL, especially consumer DSL. All network equipment vendors are suffering from revenue declines, but those vendors who specialize in DSL equipment are really taking it on the chin, and this is because providers, whether CLEC or RBOC, are not investing in DSL, and the reason for that is that the profit margins are pretty much nonexistent. > > 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 ha ve > > > > 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 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35801&t=35611 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
