x
Optical/IP

WorldCom Goes Boom

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse in the telecommunications market, they got much worse.

In disclosing possibly the largest corporate accounting fraud in history, WorldCom Inc. (Nasdaq: WCOM) said Tuesday night it will restate all of its financial earnings for 2001 and the first quarter of 2002 (see WorldCom: 'Oops!').

The accounting errors stem from "transfers" of expenses to capital costs that were not taken in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), says the company. The amount of these transfers was $3.055 billion for 2001 and $797 million for first-quarter 2002, according to the company.

According to a company release, "it was determined that certain transfers from line cost expenses to capital accounts during this period were not made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)."

Scott Sullivan, the chief financial officer and secretary of WorldCom, has been fired. The company has also accepted the resignation of David Myers as senior vice president and comptroller.

Accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP was WorldCom's auditor until May of this year. In today's statement, WorldCom said that it recently brought in KPMG to undertake a comprehensive audit of its financial statements for 2001 and 2002.

The internal investigation showed that without the transfers, the company’s reported EBITDA would be reduced to $6.339 billion for 2001 and $1.368 billion for first-quarter 2002, and the company would have reported a net loss for 2001 and for the first quarter of 2002, the company statement says. Given the scale of the restatement, WorldCom’s problems may even exceed Enron's woes.

The news comes as a culmination of WorldCom's many troubles, which have been building over the months and have included credit problems, mounting losses, shareholder lawsuits, and an SEC investigation into its accounting practices (see WorldCom Accounting: What's Up?, WorldCom's Woes Mount, Is It Too Late to Rescue WorldCom? , WorldCom's Junk Status Fuels Fears, and Stockholders Sue WorldCom).

In a statement today, the SEC announced that it is stepping up its investigation of the company (see SEC Comments on WorldCom). Even the President of the United States jumped into the brouhaha. Speaking to reporters at the Group of Eight summit in Canada today, President Bush indicated that there would be a federal investigation into WorldCom's accounting practices.

"The good news is, most corporate leaders in America are good, honest, open people who care deeply about shareholders and employees, and our economy is strong,” the President said. “But when we find egregious practices such as the one revealed today, we'll go after them."

The accounting discoveries cast major doubt on WorldCom's survival prospects. Although it currently has enough cash to support operations, WorldCom’s $32 billion debt load had already subjected the company to speculation that it might soon be forced to file for bankruptcy. And after yesterday’s revelation, observers say that the new financing the company was seeking from several banks will certainly not materialize, and that there is no longer any way around a bankruptcy filing.

"My strong feeling is that WorldCom is hosed,” says Bart Schachter, a general partner at Blueprint Ventures. “It’s going to go into bankruptcy and force a consolidation in the industry.”

Many of WorldCom's potential accounting and financial problems have been detailed by Light Reading's own paid research product, Optical Oracle (see LR Analyzes Carrier Financial Crisis).

"Of the 'big three' telcos, potential insolvency issues are most prevalent at WorldCom," wrote the Optical Oracle in its March newsletter, Carrier Crisis Report: "Management and sell-side analysts completely dismiss this notion, citing WorldCom’s strong balance sheet and access to capital. There are, however, some very disturbing items that could lead to trouble in coming months. If one believes that the market is the best discounting vehicle for future performance, WorldCom’s outlook is bleak."

In the post-Enron (and Global Crossing) world, the news rocked telecommunications and financial markets, sending the indexes spiraling downward. In the first half-hour of trading, the Nasdaq Composite Index dropped 32.58 (2.29%) to 1,391.41; and the Light Reading Index dropped 4.21 (3.75%) to 108.14, an all-time low since the Index was launched in 2000.

Many of the large service providers have already started feeling the sting of what observers call guilt by association. Qwest Communications International Inc. (NYSE: Q), which has been plagued by many of the same problems that WorldCom has been facing (and which also until recently was audited by Arthur Andersen), saw its stock price plummet by nearly 50 percent in trading today.

Fears that WorldCom will soon be filing for bankruptcy have also affected the stock prices of several equipment vendors that claim the company as a customer. Juniper Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: JNPR), which gets more than 10 percent of its revenues from the carrier, has seen its stock price plummet nearly 22 percent. And although Nortel Networks Corp. (NYSE/Toronto: NT) claims to have no material exposure to WorldCom, the scandal probably played a role in its stock price dropping to a year-low of $1.33 a share.

Like Nortel, Lucent Technologies Inc. (NYSE: LU) claims to have minimal exposure to WorldCom, but other vendors, including Alcatel SA (NYSE: ALA; Paris: CGEP:PA), Ciena Corp. (Nasdaq: CIEN), Fujitsu Ltd. (KLS: FUJI.KL), Redback Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: RBAK), and Riverstone Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: RSTN), will almost certainly be hit hard if the carrier files for bankruptcy.

With a scandal of this proportion, the guilt by association has, however, not only affected the telecom sector. There are already indications that WorldCom’s demise will prolong the crunch in the overall economy. “The ripple effects are severe,” says Frank Dzubeck, president and CEO of Communications Network Architects, saying that he spent the night in interviews with foreign news agencies trying to convince them that fraudulent behavior is not endemic to the American business system. “The nuclear winter keeps going.”

This morning, trading in WorldCom stock was halted after dipping below $1 for the first time on Monday. It last traded at $0.83.

The company said its board has retained William R. McLucas, of the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, and former Chief of the Enforcement Division of the SEC, to conduct an independent investigation.

"Our senior management team is shocked by these discoveries," said John Sidgmore, WorldCom CEO, in today’s statement.

The company said it expects to further cut capital expenditures for 2002 and that it is continuing its downsizing effort, reducing the workforce by 17,000, beginning this Friday. This is a continuation of cost-cutting efforts that had been previously announced (see WorldCom Strips Down).

— R. Scott Raynovich, US Editor, and Eugénie Larson, Reporter, Light Reading
http://www.lightreading.com Check out Light Reading's July Research Poll on this topic to find out what others think about who's to blame for Worldcom's woes, and whether there are other skeletons in its closet.



Editor's Note: Light Reading is not affiliated with Oracle Corporation.
literight 12/4/2012 | 10:10:36 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom "- Sysco is a food service distributor
- A tenement is a bad apartment
- This is a bulletin board where telecom issues are discussed"

That's right so what are they doing in Telecom distributing food to bad apartments?
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:10:43 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom sysco's basic tenement is to ...

---------

- Sysco is a food service distributor
- A tenement is a bad apartment
- This is a bulletin board where telecom issues are discussed
literight 12/4/2012 | 10:10:47 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom "Secondly, whether it's "fair" to catch one criminal while another one goes free is an interesting philosophical debate but it's not an argument on behalf of the one who was caught."

Tell YOU what-- sysco's basic tenement is to change the rules to look better in any situation. Using a bunch of shylocks they have been able to get away with the WORST accounting practices in the history of hi-tech as we know it for shareholders, unsuspecting customers and to their own employees.

Right now, the strategy at Tasman is to sit on it, and make it worse for everyone so they hope to emerge as the winner. But this cold winter will drive into them the cold dagger that history is made on intelligent substance, not marketing. And substance they do not have nor the brains to sustain.

They are burning more than can be sustained.
Twistall 12/4/2012 | 10:10:55 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom "Look, Bernie, I gave you $10 to get wood so you could build a better lemonade stand, and you and your buddies took it and spent it down at the candy store. You promised me you'd pay me back $15 because you'd be making so much more with the fancy signage. Looks like you owe me a couple lawn mowings."

"Aw, c'mon dad! I told everyone we were goin' fishin' today!"

So, how 'bout it, Bernie? I'm sure all those stockholders would forgive you if you came by and mowed their lawns, raked a few leaves, or washed a couple windows. Remember, you promised.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:10:57 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom 1. $100 million is about 17.5% of Merrill's 2001 net income. Seems significant to me.
2. Merrill trades at about an 18 PE.... so $100 million translates into $1.8 billion in market cap!
3. $1.8 billion is 5% of Merrill's entire market cap

Pretty soon we will be talking about real money.

=========

Look, the shareholders will pay it. The executives couldn't care less. I wonder if their fine is a deductible business expense.
LaserZelig 12/4/2012 | 10:11:00 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom WillyWilson.....
re $100 million not being significant to Merrill Lynch....

1. $100 million is about 17.5% of Merrill's 2001 net income. Seems significant to me.
2. Merrill trades at about an 18 PE.... so $100 million translates into $1.8 billion in market cap!
3. $1.8 billion is 5% of Merrill's entire market cap

Pretty soon we will be talking about real money.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:03 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom IsnGÇÖt it a bit unfair to single out WorldCom when others are also doing it GÇô using the same GÇ£principleGÇ¥?

---------

First off, WorldCom's fraud was not related to acqusition costs. It might help if you actually went out and learned something before expressing an opinion on it. Secondly, whether it's "fair" to catch one criminal while another one goes free is an interesting philosophical debate but it's not an argument on behalf of the one who was caught.
pro zack 12/4/2012 | 10:11:04 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom "Cisco: Behind the hype" (Business Week Cover Story, Jan. 21) quotes Abraham J. Briloff, professor emeritus at Baruch College, as saying that Cisco Systems Inc. "suppressed a grand total of $18.2 billion in costs" when it accounted for certain acquisitions by the pooling-of-interests method.

IsnGÇÖt it a bit unfair to single out WorldCom when others are also doing it GÇô using the same GÇ£principleGÇ¥?
literight 12/4/2012 | 10:11:06 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom "1. A $100 million fine to Merrill Lynch is not a slap on the wrist according to any metric"

Ahem-- in 1947 GM was found guilty of destorying the public transportation system in Greater Los Angeles. There was a plan to build a public transport system from suburbs and surroundings to main workareas in the industrialized parts of the city for a few hundreds of millions.

GM thwarted this plan by subversively breaking down the transport systems- economically and politically, and were found guilty by the US Courts/Grand Jury.

GM were asked to pay less than $1000 fine and they laughed all the way to court.

Guess how much the new "LA underground" is costing taxpayers and the Government- in the tune of billions to construct the same system.

To draw parallels, the likes of the RBOCs benefit today but repurcussions a few decades down the road are even more horrific to think about...
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:11 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Do you have to comment on every single article, every single response, every single tidbit ... enought already .... go away!

---------

See that "ignore author" switch?
Ben_Stern 12/4/2012 | 10:11:14 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Do you have to comment on every single article, every single response, every single tidbit ... enought already .... go away!

"I told you not to be stupid, you moron." - Ben Stern
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:17 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom 1. A $100 million fine to Merrill Lynch is not a slap on the wrist according to any metric.

2. What individual would you prosecute at Merrill Lynch for implementing the industry practice of producing optimistic research reports and good ratings to clients and prospective clients of the investment banking division?

3. Every wire house that has both research and IB is guilty.

4. How many "sell" recommendations have you seen in history?

5. On the other hand, every time the SEC goes after a small brokerage firm or an individual who is not defended by a large wire house, there is a complete lack of due process.

6. When Merrill Lynch is investigated, they have a team of lawyers who defend them and business is not interupted at all. When an individual or small firm is investigated, business suffers, defense costs hurt, and their ongoing reputation suffers. When Merrill Lynch was scrutinized for their role in the Orange County bankruptcy, they were represented by Harvey Pitt (the current Chairman of the SEC)!

7. Is New York going to be the only state that sues Merrill Lynch? Merrill operates in all 50 states and their analysts recommendations are distributed everywhere. Why haven't other states jumped in? Merrill is, of course, arguing that only the SEC should have jurisdiction over this sort of thing. Who knows.

--------

1. $100 million is absolutely NOTHING to Merrill Lynch.

2. How about Blodgett, for issuing buy ratings while simultenously writing internal e-mails calling the same companies pieces of shit?

3. Yes ...

4. They were rare but not unknown.

5. Yes ...

6. Yup ...

7. The other states' actions got consolidated into the NY claim. Merrill is off the hook! Maybe they'll pay some more bucks in civil cases but no individuals there will suffer.
LaserZelig 12/4/2012 | 10:11:18 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Willywilson wrote:
- Eliot Spitzer, NY Att'y General, who fined Merrill Lynch less than it spent on last year's office supplies, didn't convict them of a crime but rather gave them a "consent" decree under which they admitted no wrongdoing, and didn't criminally go after any people or their money.

- The S.E.C. and Justice Department, which have not prosecuted a single individual, and which let CS First Boston enter a Merrill-like "consent decree" in connection to the manipulation of the IPO market during the bubble

1. A $100 million fine to Merrill Lynch is not a slap on the wrist according to any metric.
2. What individual would you prosecute at Merrill Lynch for implementing the industry practice of producing optimistic research reports and good ratings to clients and prospective clients of the investment banking division? Every wire house that has both research and IB is guilty. How many "sell" recommendations have you seen in history? I think the fine was just to set an example to the industry.
3. On the other hand, every time the SEC goes after a small brokerage firm or an individual who is not defended by a large wire house, there is a complete lack of due process. Small firms and individuals cannot afford to defend themselves against the infinite resources of the government. So they are forced to enter into "consent decrees" where they neither admit nor deny wrongdoing and they are stuck with onerous fines and blemishes on their record. When Merrill Lynch is investigated, they have a team of lawyers who defend them and business is not interupted at all. When an individual or small firm is investigated, business suffers, defense costs hurt, and their ongoing reputation suffers. When Merrill Lynch was scrutinized for their role in the Orange County bankruptcy, they were represented by Harvey Pitt (the current Chairman of the SEC)!
4. Is New York going to be the only state that sues Merrill Lynch? Merrill operates in all 50 states and their analysts recommendations are distributed everywhere. Why haven't other states jumped in? Merrill is, of course, arguing that only the SEC should have jurisdiction over this sort of thing. Who knows.
wilecoyote 12/4/2012 | 10:11:21 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Just a thought here, but if WCOM's assets are sold, carved, spun off etc. could that actually create opportunities for equipment companies?

Does anyone have any comments on the various lines of business and what they might generate in profits if stand alone entities?

Remember, UUNET is one of the most highly respected ISPs in the world even now. Always has been...Could it be profitable as a standalone company? As an example?
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:30 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Who would disagree with that ?

-------

Where do we start?

- Eliot Spitzer, NY Att'y General, who fined Merrill Lynch less than it spent on last year's office supplies, didn't convict them of a crime but rather gave them a "consent" decree under which they admitted no wrongdoing, and didn't criminally go after any people or their money.

- The S.E.C. and Justice Department, which have not prosecuted a single individual, and which let CS First Boston enter a Merrill-like "consent decree" in connection to the manipulation of the IPO market during the bubble.

- Silicon Valley VCs and corporate managers, who are backpedaling away as fast as they can while using the current situation to try to give the RBOCs unregulated phone monopolies for the purpose of hoping to sell them some routers.
netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:11:30 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom > to the fullest extent of the law, including
> real jail time and ruinous financial penalties,
> should be #1 on the list.

Who would disagree with that ?

Thanks,

Netskeptic
netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:11:31 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom > hmmm, and I thought it was my taxes that was
> paying for all that stuff ;-) Replacing the "I"
> with a "we" would give credit to the rest of
> us.

I was misreading your posts assuming that you are talking about an "endless source of public money" which has to be used for VOIP salvation, I am sorry.

> The sad part, at least in my experiences, is
> that much of the time people spend more time
> figuring out how not to pay for anything yet
> take more than their fair share. Obviously this
> system breaks down. Nobody would ever share a
> dinner check if the total bill is always larger
> than the individual contributions.

Yes, free market is a very inefficient mechansim (and we can spend days discussing its shortcomings), however, it is the best tool humanity got for balancing interests of individuals with interests of society as a whole (we can also spend days discussing back and forth why it is so).

Thanks,

Netskeptic


willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:31 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom However, it will not solve the root problem of gross misalignment between interests of executives and interests of owners of the public companies.

---------

I think jail and losing everything you own, if widely applied, has a way of keeping everyone a tad bit more on the straight & narrow than they had been. I'm all for changing the structural problems, but I think prosecuting the criminals -- both corporate and individual -- to the fullest extent of the law, including real jail time and ruinous financial penalties, should be #1 on the list.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:31 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Nobody would ever share a dinner check if the total bill is always larger than the individual contributions.

---------

Imagine if you went to a restaurant and were promised the biggest and best meal you'd ever eat, so you paid $400 per person in advance. Then you got there -- the name, "The Broadband Cafe" -- and were served stewed cockroaches with a dead rat on the side.

You might say, "live and learn." I certainly would, but I'd also want my money back. I'd ask some rather pointed questions about why the health inspectors had never visited and why the local newspapers gave it such great reviews. I'd want the restauranteur fined and jailed for his fraud.

Above all, I don't think I'd ask my fellow citizens for float a bond issue to build an annex!
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:31 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I assume Netskeptic and Willywilson won't mind us using "their money" to incarcerate these crooks?

---------

Don't forget that I want these crooks not only jailed, but I want their money reclaimed. And if it's been spent, then I want the things it was spent on to be seized and auctioned off. I reckon the taxpayers will make a profit on the operation, which is more than you can say for the fraudband sector.
DarkWriting 12/4/2012 | 10:11:32 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I assume Netskeptic and Willywilson won't mind us using "their money" to incarcerate these crooks?

DW
netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:11:32 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom > I assume Netskeptic and Willywilson won't mind
> us using "their money" to incarcerate these
> crooks?

Absolutely not this is one of the functions where state is simply unavoidable.

However, it will not solve the root problem of gross misalignment between interests of executives and interests of owners of the public companies.

Thanks,

Netskeptic
netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:11:32 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom > Don't forget that they'll need pay for their
> own DoD if they want to be able to afford the
> fuel for that SUV.

(1)I am paying for DoD and every other alphabet soup agency along with repavement of the roads, sewer services, electricity, water supply and other stuff you can even think of. Last time I checked, my family paid well over $50K in taxes (not counting the sales tax). Considering that both me and my wife are salaried workers on the lowest rungs of engineering hierarchy and we did not have any realised stock gains (and our unrealized gain is something like $10K over last 10 years) it seems more than enough. When we were earning less we were paying smaller percentage as taxes but we have harder time affording them.

(2)So far you were arguing that everybody has to pay more taxes in order to line the pockets of various VOIP vendors like you, it is simply a wrong thing to do and it will only worsen the situation.

Thanks,

Netskeptic

rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:11:32 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I am paying for DoD and every other alphabet soup agency along with repavement of the roads, sewer services, electricity, water supply and other stuff you can even think of.
______________

hmmm, and I thought it was my taxes that was paying for all that stuff ;-) Replacing the "I" with a "we" would give credit to the rest of us.

The sad part, at least in my experiences, is that much of the time people spend more time figuring out how not to pay for anything yet take more than their fair share. Obviously this system breaks down. Nobody would ever share a dinner check if the total bill is always larger than the individual contributions.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:11:34 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and sign off the Internet permanently and get an SUV and drive on the dirt to work and stay off the roads. Both were built with "our money".
________________

Don't forget that they'll need pay for their own DoD if they want to be able to afford the fuel for that SUV.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:34 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom you invoke TechNet, Cisco, Silicon Valley, VC's and Californians in general as collectively the Great Satan, to blame for all of the world's ills. Whatever grudge you are bearing cannot be healthy.

We may be collectively the devil incarnate, but I think you have to give us a pass on this one.

-----------

p.s.: California is a great place. It's the Californians that are the problem ...
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:34 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom What is so wrong in being a right-wing Republican?

----------

Let me answer elliptically: "If you have to ask the price of a yacht, you can't afford one."
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:34 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom In many (no, make that most) of your posts, you seem quite reasonable and articulate (ie, your views agree with my own(;-)), but then comes the inevitable 1 out of 4 in which you invoke TechNet, Cisco, Silicon Valley, VC's and Californians in general as collectively the Great Satan, to blame for all of the world's ills. Whatever grudge you are bearing cannot be healthy.

To get back to the thread topic, as far as I am aware there are no Californians involved (Ebbers is Canadian, after all), no VCs involved, no California technology executives involved, and the line of culpable investment bankers begins and ends in New York (with Jack Grubman at the front).

We may be collectively the devil incarnate, but I think you have to give us a pass on this one. And as far as stealing billions and billions the old fashioned capitalist way, the conventional wisdom dispensed here by our uniformly-Democrat elected officials is that the money was not stolen by us, but from us. By Texans!

---------

Touche! I hereby declare that not necessarily EVERY corporate fraud is committed by Californians.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:34 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom 1. Putting "poor", violent criminals in jail means
a whole lot more to the lives of most "poor"
people than worrying about venture capitalist
fraud.

2. Or the "great" community leader of the "poor"
who knocks up his young assistant and spends
most of his time shaking down corporations for
money and jobs in what looks like protection
racket.

3. To the vast majority of people, VC "fraud"
means little or nothing.

--------

1 & 3: I agree in the sense that most people wouldn't know what a "VC" is. That's a term of art. People do understand what has happened to their retirement savings, though. You sound like a Republican who is all in favor of corporate theft.

2. Good point. Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr and Henry Hyde did have some problems in this area.
geof hollingsworth 12/4/2012 | 10:11:37 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Agreed. Now, back to the question at hand: What to do about the corrupt California venture capitalists, technology company executives and investment bankers who lied, cheated and stole billions and billions of dollars the old fashioned capitalist way?


In many (no, make that most) of your posts, you seem quite reasonable and articulate (ie, your views agree with my own(;-)), but then comes the inevitable 1 out of 4 in which you invoke TechNet, Cisco, Silicon Valley, VC's and Californians in general as collectively the Great Satan, to blame for all of the world's ills. Whatever grudge you are bearing cannot be healthy.

To get back to the thread topic, as far as I am aware there are no Californians involved (Ebbers is Canadian, after all), no VCs involved, no California technology executives involved, and the line of culpable investment bankers begins and ends in New York (with Jack Grubman at the front).

We may be collectively the devil incarnate, but I think you have to give us a pass on this one. And as far as stealing billions and billions the old fashioned capitalist way, the conventional wisdom dispensed here by our uniformly-Democrat elected officials is that the money was not stolen by us, but from us. By Texans!
netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:11:37 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom > LOL!! You think I'm a right-wing Republican?!

What is so wrong in being a right-wing Republican ?
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:11:38 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Water, Rail, Sewage, Schools, Electricity, Post - woops I am paying for all of it from my very own pocket (e.g. first class stamps are going to be 37c over this weekend) and a few years before I simply had personal Water and Sewage.
_______________________

You did *not* pay for the infrastructure build out. It was paid for by previous generations.
========================

That depends on where you live. There are lots
of schools, water, sewer systems going in every
year. Every person who moves into a newly built
house knows about paying for these things. And
those people pay a high price for that
infrastructure.



willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:38 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom 1. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and sign off the Internet permanently and get an SUV and drive on the dirt to work and stay off the roads. Both were built with "our money".

2. Please stop getting your information from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Matt Drudge and get some perspective.

3. The US is socialistic, it just appears that no one wants to admit it. We are certainly not capitalistic and even the Republicans don't jump on that bandwagon, only the Libertarians and they have their heads up their arses when it comes to the real world. (I'm an independent)

---------

1. It depends on what you call "the Internet." Yes, it started as a DARPA project. But "the Internet" is basically a bunch of privately owned servers and routers connected by private carriers. The phone system was built mostly by private, regulated monopolies. Highways by governments. Where did you ever get the idea that I oppose public funding of highway construction?

2. LOL!! You think I'm a right-wing Republican?!

3. The U.S. is a mixture of lots of things, including some socialism. But this country is not "socialistic."
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:11:39 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Agreed. Now, back to the question at hand: What to do about the corrupt California venture capitalists, technology company executives and investment bankers who lied, cheated and stole billions and billions of dollars the old fashioned capitalist way? Or do you only approve of law enforcement against poor, usually blacker criminals while letting your white, well-spoken, middle-class golfing buddies get off scot-free? Hey, it's understandable. It's the Silicon Valley way!
---------

And race-baiting, class-warfare and paternalistic
rich-boy social engineering are the hallmarks of
the american left.

Putting "poor", violent criminals in jail means
a whole lot more to the lives of most "poor"
people than worrying about venture capitalist
fraud.

If we take a look at who is the most worried
about VC fraud, we will find that its "white, well-spoken, middle-class golfing buddies"
with 401k's or direct investments in places
like enron or worldcom stock.

You know, people like the core Clinton supporters.
Baby-boomer hypocrits who talk liberal while their
greed requires them to steal everything in sight.
You know, the kind that whine on about the poor
while they are at the same time involved in
"urban redevelopment" where anyone who doesn't
"look right" or have the right income is pushed
out to make room for "young professionals" of
conscience who want to live in a "gritty"
"multiethnic" urban neighborhood which is
gritty and multiethnic some safe distance away.

Or the "great" community leader of the "poor"
who knocks up his young assistant and spends
most of his time shaking down corporations for
money and jobs in what looks like protection
racket.

Or the idiots stealing money from real education
in order to make computer companies rich by
getting schools to buy endless numbers of
computers at huge unexplainable price mark-ups.



Or the "guilty rich" who love poverty and poor
neighborhoods in the same way they love theme
parks. And who treat the poor as diseased
inferior beings.

To the vast majority of people, VC "fraud"
means little or nothing.
netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:11:39 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom > > ... Rail ...

> You did *not* pay for the infrastructure build
> out. It was paid for by previous generations.

Huh ? Ever heard about Vanderbuilts ?

Thanks,

Netskeptic
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:11:39 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Water, Rail, Sewage, Schools, Electricity, Post - woops I am paying for all of it from my very own pocket (e.g. first class stamps are going to be 37c over this weekend) and a few years before I simply had personal Water and Sewage.
_______________________

You did *not* pay for the infrastructure build out. It was paid for by previous generations.

One day we will learn that we do not live on virgin islands, and that those who came before deserve our respect, and those coming after need us to meet our responsibilities and obligations.
DarkWriting 12/4/2012 | 10:11:40 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Netskeptic/WillyWilson,

You have got to be kidding me??!! Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and sign off the Internet permanently and get an SUV and drive on the dirt to work and stay off the roads. Both were built with "our money".

DW

P.S. Please stop getting your information from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Matt Drudge and get some perspective.

P.P.S. The US is socialistic, it just appears that no one wants to admit it. We are certainly not capitalistic and even the Republicans don't jump on that bandwagon, only the Libertarians and they have their heads up their arses when it comes to the real world. (I'm an independent)
netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:11:42 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom > Water. Roads. Rail. Sewage. Schools.
> Electricity. Post. Middle class housing (yes, a
> mortgage deduction is a government program).

Water, Rail, Sewage, Schools, Electricity, Post - woops I am paying for all of it from my very own pocket (e.g. first class stamps are going to be 37c over this weekend) and a few years before I simply had personal Water and Sewage.

It seems like you have a hard case of post-VOIP hangover.

Thanks,

Netskeptic

rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:11:46 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I have heard that the automobile industry lobbied hard to build the highways, specifically to prevent the emergence of public transport. I don't know if this is true.
____________

A good book on the subject is titled "Getting There" by Stephen B. Goddard. The closing paragraph of the preface (Feb. 1994):

"Today an information revolution is changing America with blinding speed. The same emotions that gave life to the epic struggle between road and rail will drive this movement and determine whether society harnesses it or is harnessed by it. During the last century, government failed to promote effectively the public interest -- first in allowing railroads to exploit the people they served, then in breaking the railroads' spirit, and finally in overbuilding America's superhighways. We may be forgiven our mistakes of the past; we were naive and untested then. Sadder but wiser now, we have at hand a century of experience with such commercial hurricanes. If we fail to bring these lessons to bear on the twenty-first-century challenges, we have only ourselves to blame."

Personally, I believe we can do it right this time, but not without learning from those who went before us.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:46 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Personally, I believe we can do it right this time, but not without learning from those who went before us.

----------

By all means try. Just use your own money, o.k.?
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:47 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom My history is far from complete though everywhere I look and I see abundance, I also see some sort of government infrastructure which was put in place *first*.

What national resource of abundance has a free market provided? Our farmland was given to farmers. Water. Roads. Rail. Sewage. Schools. Electricity. Post. Middle class housing (yes, a mortgage deduction is a government program).

----------

Subsidy alert! Subsidy alert! WATCH YOUR WALLETS!! Ahoogah!! Ahoogah!! Dive! Dive! Dive!
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:47 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I highly recommend that you read "The Road to Serfdom" by Frederick Hayek. This tells you how there is just no way to combine socialism with anything other than dictatorship. It was written in the 1940s to warn the UK of the disaster of "democratic socialism". The disaster exactly came to pass and he won a Nobel prize.

--------

Agreed. Now, back to the question at hand: What to do about the corrupt California venture capitalists, technology company executives and investment bankers who lied, cheated and stole billions and billions of dollars the old fashioned capitalist way? Or do you only approve of law enforcement against poor, usually blacker criminals while letting your white, well-spoken, middle-class golfing buddies get off scot-free? Hey, it's understandable. It's the Silicon Valley way!
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:11:47 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Free markets should be the basic premise, with government existing as referee and law enforcer. In those cases where the market can't provide a necessary item or service, then the government should step in. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that free enterprise can't provide telecom.
_________________

My history is far from complete though everywhere I look and I see abundance, I also see some sort of government infrastructure which was put in place *first*.

What national resource of abundance has a free market provided? Our farmland was given to farmers. Water. Roads. Rail. Sewage. Schools. Electricity. Post. Middle class housing (yes, a mortgage deduction is a government program).
DoTheMath 12/4/2012 | 10:11:47 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom > We are still waiting to see someone try
> communism without a military junta in power.

----------------------------------------------
UK tried it in the post-war years, and it went from a world power to somewhere-between-Italy-and-Korea in just 40 years. During that time something like 60% of their workforce got unionized, productivity and standard of living plummeted, and even 20 years after abandoning "democratic socialism" they haven't fully recovered.

Among the poor countries, India tried combining democracy with socialism, post independence from Britain (the last parting gift of the Brits to the Indians was "democratic socialism"). In 1991, India flirted with bankruptcy and ditched the socialism part - luckily - the other choice was to ditch democracy.

I highly recommend that you read "The Road to Serfdom" by Frederick Hayek. This tells you how there is just no way to combine socialism with anything other than dictatorship. It was written in the 1940s to warn the UK of the disaster of "democratic socialism". The disaster exactly came to pass and he won a Nobel prize.
netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:11:48 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom > P.S. The Soviet Union could just as likely have
> collapsed because their style of government was
> crap and did not allow any freedom.

As socialism goes, soviet government was top notch - it was able to have a self-sustained socialist society for a whopping 20 years (from mid-50s to mid-70s), all this whithout foreign intervention, major repressions, hunger or war. I highly doubt that socialists wannabees like you would be ever able to reach this level in 20-30 years filled with mass hunger and repressions.

> We are still waiting to see someone try
> communism without a military junta in power.

I simply does not work without military junta: people do get rid of communism either at the voting booth before it even had a chance to begin its work in earnest (a la French elections of 2002) or popular uprising (a la Hungary of 1956) or by simply running away (a la East Germany of 1989).

> We are just coming at the same problem
> (fairness) from different directions.

World and life are fundumentally unfair, it is time to get pillow and weep.

> Look what is happening over there now with a
> free market economy and an even crappier
> pseudo-western government.

????? Our government is not western enough ?????
This one has to be framed and hang on the wall.

Thanks,

Netskeptic
switchrus 12/4/2012 | 10:11:49 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom GÇ£Let the local governments debate it in their respective city halls, and decide for themselves if it is worth having fiber to the home in their cities. Some cities may find it worthwhile, many others won't. Some cities offer Cable TV themselves. I envision this would be very similar.GÇ¥

You are quite right about local cities studying this concept, local cities such as Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Burbank and few others have done just that, create local dark fiber infrastructures.

The problem with local cities, especially out here in California, is the tremendous pressure on local government to fund basic services in light of reductions of funding in recent years. Work on FTH or even Dark Fiber networks is not something high on the list of things to do for most city councils, IGÇÖve tried in my local community and it went nowhere fast.

ThereGÇÖs also a problem with bottoms up development work, such as you suggest, too many RFIGÇÖs with to few common requirements, heck of thing for anyone to make a decent job of knocking on the doors of 1000GÇÖs of city hall doors. Nationally led development projects do tend to create a GÇ£one size fits allGÇ¥ solution, but it does make the effort focused.
DarkWriting 12/4/2012 | 10:11:49 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom >>It's our economy and our government. They are both human constructs and they can be whatever we want them to be.

-----------

Government, yes. Economy, no. That's the lesson of the Soviet collapse. Free markets should be the basic premise, with government existing as referee and law enforcer. In those cases where the market can't provide a necessary item or service, then the government should step in. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that free enterprise can't provide telecom.<<

------------------------------

Government, yes. Economy, HELL YES. Don't disagree with most of this but there is not a single business sector that doesn't need regulation, otherwise the "business cycles" will continue. Here's a concept that engineers can probably understand. The economy is a system and could be modeled just like any other system. It's STABILITY vs. RESPONSE. Stability = government regulation or some form of monitoring (I wish it could be self policed but that will never work, too many humans are greedy contemptable pigs), Response = free markets and laissez faire. In any stable system you wouldn't allow either to dominate. Doesn't the term "business cycle" remind anyone of an underdamped/oscillating system???

DW

P.S. The Soviet Union could just as likely have collapsed because their style of government was crap and did not allow any freedom. We are still waiting to see someone try communism without a military junta in power. We are just coming at the same problem (fairness) from different directions. Look what is happening over there now with a free market economy and an even crappier pseudo-western government.
DoTheMath 12/4/2012 | 10:11:50 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom >Lockheed was bailed out in the 70GÇÖs

Don't know much about this. Not old enough to know.

>Chrysler in the early 80GÇÖs

Bad idea. Through the 80's and early 90's Chrysler produced mostly crappy cars (Lee Iacocca himself said so later). What interest was served by keeping them alive?

>Interstate highway system development of the 50GÇÖs and 60GÇÖs

Great idea. But this example only shows what works with Government involvement: create basic infrastructure that is useful to every one, not to bail out a specific industry or a company. The government built the roads, but did not buy people cars. Even in this case, there is a question whether mass transportation (high speed trains, buses etc) was shot in the head in order to build the highways. I have heard that the automobile industry lobbied hard to build the highways, specifically to prevent the emergence of public transport. I don't know if this is true.

>Public works of the 20GÇÖs and 30GÇÖs like the Hoover Dam
1800GÇÖs the Erie Canal and other inland transportation networks to allow easy transport of farm crops from the GÇ£ButternetGÇ¥ area of Illinois to markets in the east.

Again, similar argument to the above.

So clearly, from the good examples above, if there is a way that Government policy could benefit all or a vast majority of citizens, without imposing an unjust burden on even a small minority (to prevent ideas such as 99% marginal taxes on the top 1% of the population to fund telecom), I see merit in it. "Industrial policy" is a different matter - it means you favor specific industries by giving them government cash or contracts and allow them to employ people for long periods of time without necessarily having the business fundamentals right.

Coming to telecom, the only Government involvement I could see is if local Governments decide to create fiber to the home, and then open up the fiber to call comers, creating a truly competitive system. RJ has argued for this in other threads. It is highly preferable that *local* governments do this, rather than the federal government. The only federal role I see is to set some kind of "open access" standards so that the technologies adopted are not proprietary.

Let the local governments debate it in their respective city halls, and decide for themselves if it is worth having fiber to the home in their cities. Some cities may find it worthwhile, many others won't. Some cities offer Cable TV themselves. I envision this would be very similar.

If the various local governments laid the fiber, but left the actual services to entrepreneurs on an open and transparent basis, we have the basis for the market to do its work. I view this as Government creating an infrastructure (such as water works or waste treatment plants or highways) that the current state of scientific progress permits for the entire population.
DarkWriting 12/4/2012 | 10:11:51 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom >It's our economy and our government. They are both human constructs and they can be whatever we want them to be. Some of you sound like they're some kind of sacred cows that we must respond to rather than the other way around.

-----------------------------------------------

>>>What does "our economy" mean in this context? As I said in my post, I would love to wave the flag and talk about "our" high paying jobs, and get the poor taxpayers to pick up the tab for saving MY high paying job. Yet, this is what some people here are proposing to do collectively as an industry. Personally, I would feel like stealing if I took such help from the taxpayer to protect MY high pay.

Yes, there is nothing sacred or holy about economics. But the prohibition against stealing is also a human construct, right? For that matter, all the laws you obey are also human constructs. So if it is inconvenient to some of us to obey some laws (I personally would like not paying taxes!), let us just bend these "human constructs" to our will, right?<<<

---------------------------

Welcome to pure free market capitalism and the crooks it breeds. You don't bend the rules, you change them by changing the law!!! That's my point exactly. I agree that the enforcement of the law has been pretty poor but that is up to US as well.

DW
dsb 12/4/2012 | 10:11:51 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom It's still better than the amtrak model of doing business....
switchrus 12/4/2012 | 10:11:52 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom GÇ£What does "our economy" mean in this context? As I said in my post, I would love to wave the flag and talk about "our" high paying jobs, and get the poor taxpayers to pick up the tab for saving MY high paying job. Yet, this is what some people here are proposing to do collectively as an industry. Personally, I would feel like stealing if I took such help from the taxpayer to protect MY high pay.GÇ¥

The American tradition of taxpayers supporting private industry is long and in many cases quite successful.

Lockheed was bailed out in the 70GÇÖs
Chrysler in the early 80GÇÖs
Interstate highway system development of the 50GÇÖs and 60GÇÖs
Public works of the 20GÇÖs and 30GÇÖs like the Hoover Dam
1800GÇÖs the Erie Canal and other inland transportation networks to allow easy transport of farm crops from the GÇ£ButternetGÇ¥ area of Illinois to markets in the east.

All projects paid for with tax dollars which resulted in increases in the national economy.

You do however have a point about how the impact of turmoil in this industry is effecting people that had GÇ£High Paying jobsGÇ¥. There have been few lower paying jobs created in the industry due to lack of incentives for manufacturers of components and equipment to build production capabilities in the US. If there is Government action to GÇ£assistGÇ¥ this industry, I would hope that there are elements of such a plan which addresses this part of the employment picture.

As to GÇ£flag wavingGÇ¥, darn tooting I wave the flag, quite proudly thank you very much!
fusionboy 12/4/2012 | 10:11:53 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Not that this will happen, given that the current White House was bought and paid for by Enron.
_______________________________________________

Like Enron before it, Worldcom will make for interesting hypocrisy - the analogy to the gambling scene in Casablanca is perfect.

http://www.opensecrets.org/new...

More interesting than the White House's response will be that of the Senate Minority leader, Trent Lott, Sr. Senator from Mississippi(home of Worldcom).

"In 1999, WorldCom contributed $1 million to the establishment of the Trent Lott Leadership Institute at the University of Mississippi."

willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:11:55 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom It's our economy and our government. They are both human constructs and they can be whatever we want them to be.

-----------

Government, yes. Economy, no. That's the lesson of the Soviet collapse. Free markets should be the basic premise, with government existing as referee and law enforcer. In those cases where the market can't provide a necessary item or service, then the government should step in. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that free enterprise can't provide telecom.

Gov't should regulate that part which is monopolistic and enforce long-standing practices against fraud, and so forth. The fraud artists adopted free-market language, added a big dose of millenialist hoo-hah and stole huge in the 1990s. Now they should be prosecuted, jailed and have their winnings confiscated.

Not that this will happen, given that the current White House was bought and paid for by Enron.
DoTheMath 12/4/2012 | 10:11:55 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom
>It's our economy and our government. They are both human constructs and they can be whatever we want them to be. Some of you sound like they're some kind of sacred cows that we must respond to rather than the other way around.

-----------------------------------------------

What does "our economy" mean in this context? As I said in my post, I would love to wave the flag and talk about "our" high paying jobs, and get the poor taxpayers to pick up the tab for saving MY high paying job. Yet, this is what some people here are proposing to do collectively as an industry. Personally, I would feel like stealing if I took such help from the taxpayer to protect MY high pay.

Yes, there is nothing sacred or holy about economics. But the prohibition against stealing is also a human construct, right? For that matter, all the laws you obey are also human constructs. So if it is inconvenient to some of us to obey some laws (I personally would like not paying taxes!), let us just bend these "human constructs" to our will, right?
DarkWriting 12/4/2012 | 10:11:56 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom >>>Yes, it is painful. Yes, I personally may not have my high paying job in the telecom industry for very long. But what right do I have to demand that rest of America (namely, McDonalds workers at $18K, school teachers at $35K, auto-workers at $50K, Pediatricians at $75K, ....) should support my job at $120K? In what sense is it "strategic" to them that I keep my $120K job at the expense of their tax dollars?<<


Not that I completely disagree with you but let me think...Your $120K job allows you to spend your salary to keep the McJobbers, autoworkers, school teachers and Pediatricians employed. Wasn't that the theory behind Reaganomics? You know, the trickle down theory. Some of you pure free market a-holes just astonish me. Sorry to take an expensive shot (pardon the pun) at the almighty ultimate free marketer (except when his ox was being gored) Ronnie effing Reagan.

It's our economy and our government. They are both human constructs and they can be whatever we want them to be. Some of you sound like they're some kind of sacred cows that we must respond to rather than the other way around.

Here's one solution for the government: At election time, everyone gets a card with the governmental departments on it and writes in a percentage of their taxes that they want applied to that department. OUR govermnent aggregates the percentages and apportions the budget based on direct input from US. Obviously, the representative form of OUR government is too susceptible to influence peddling.

Ranting over...

DW


jim_smith 12/4/2012 | 10:11:58 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I agree with cfaller and DoTheMath that telecom
employees should expect lower salaries and
changes in their lifestyles. I am a telecom
employee, and I have already adjusted to the new
reality.

All the events in the past few years can be
boiled down to the age old principle that says:
in order to succeed as a honest, long term
business, you have to provide a tangible value at
a reasonable price to the end customer.

WWW (and e-mail before that) provided a tangible
value to the residential and business customer
and that fueled the rapid growth of the Internet.

From a different angle, two ways (not mutually
exclusive) to grow rapidly are: sell more stuff
without significantly lowering margins or
increasing cost, or significantly reduce the cost
without lowering margins or volume.

So, either we need a new legal (Napster not allowed),
bandwidth-hungry killer application or we need to
drastically cut Capex and Opex. Otherwise, get
ready for the usual 10% telecom growth. (Btw, in
most other industries, a 10% growth is considered
very healthy!).

I am betting on a 10% growth or lower growth for
at least 2003 and 2004. After that, who knows.
erbiumfiber 12/4/2012 | 10:11:59 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Interesting reading:

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/...
DoTheMath 12/4/2012 | 10:12:01 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom >Which "rest of the world" are you talking about here?

>>Try the European Union with Air Bus Industries.

---------------------------------------------------
France (mostly) and EU have spent over $10 billion in tax payer money to create Air Bus. So how has it helped France or EU? Do the young people in France who have never held a paying job, and where there is now a permanent class of young men on welfare, care that a *few* (very few) of their country men have high paying jobs at Airbus thanks to the government?

More broadly, would you argue that France as a whole is better off economically today than the United States because of their industrial policy? Then how come France Telecom (54% government owned) is in worse shape than most of carriers here? Bull SA is either bankrupt or nearly so (does anyone care?).

--------------------------------------------------

>There are lots of tools available to a government to shape GÇ£Industrial PolicyGÇ¥ which do cost the McDonalds workers and School Teachers something, but I would say this cost is worth it to retain jobs for people in the US.

>Tax code adjustments to encourage domestic production capacities in US telecommunications production and research, lots of Tax dollars going to Michigan colleges to study automotive technology right now.

>Domestic content laws as trade barriers to countries that export unemployment.

--------------------------------------------------

If "Industrial Policy" means widespread availability of good education, yes I am all for it. In fact, it is not enough to make education available. It is important to promote a *culture* of education, and that starts in elementary school. Having world-class graduate schools is not enough. But steering people into particular "hot" industries is stupid; there is no reliable indicator of what is going to be "hot". Everyone, including myself (sadly) thought that telecom is "it" 5 years ago. I steered some sad friends into this pit. At least I am glad I am not the government. Strong, general education, which builds minds with the flexibility to adapt, is the only reliable way.

As for countries that "export unemployment", which countries do you mean? China and Korea are exporting unemployment to Japan. So should the US stop buying their goods? In telecom equipment, the US has been "exporting unemployment" to Europe, because by and large, European telecom equipment industry missed the Internet, and handed the markets to Cisco, Juniper etc. So should Europe erect a trade barrier against Cisco and Juniper?

If I and you interview for a hard to find job, and you get the job ahead of me (perhaps because you were willing to accept a lower pay), you are "exporting unemployment" to my household. So should my household have a trade barrier against goods/services produced by your company? Now, if I wrap myself in the patriotic flag, and should out loud, I may even win the "debate".
cfaller 12/4/2012 | 10:12:02 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom opto wrote:
"bandwidth growth has been consistently at 80-110% over the past 7 years or so. If analysts agree on anything, this is the one fact that is pretty much not in dispute. Network buildout has kept pace with that, until 1998-1999. Then, the BS internet line was that the network traffic would grow 500%. Nope. Did not happen. Instead, it chugged along at the same approx. 100% rate."

"2003 will dawn as the recovery period where cost of capital goes down, and business demands require network buildouts. 2004 will absolutely be a good year"
-------------------------------

opto, you're debating on points and missing the bigger picture...

When normal businesspeople talk about industry growth, they're ALWAYS talking about revenues. You and a lot of telecom industry 'veterans' want to talk about bandwidth growth- why? Revenue (from both carriers and equipment providers) has not been growing at 80-110% year, which is what's important. Focus on that, because that's what will help you navigate this storm. Ignoring/denying the 10-15% growth is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Besides, my main point (which you missed) was that the telecom industry has positioned itself for a future that will not arrive, and as such the recovery will be long and painful. I stress the words LONG and PAINFUL.

Unless immediate action is taken, the telecom sector will still be stormy throughout next year. How can you claim that 2003 will be a year of recovery when we will still be going through bankruptcies? Here's how next year's schedule is shaping up:

- Level 3 will go bankrupt.
- WorldCom may go bankrupt before the end of this year, but I'm betting they drag it out to 2003.
- AT&T will have a massive writeoff and/or restatement.
- Global Crossing still won't have completely liquidated.
- Broadwing, Williams, and Qwest will be unstable at best, and at worst will go bankrupt (or liquidation for Williams).

Demand will still grow at the usual 10-15%, not enough to trigger another boom. Year of recovery? I don't think so.

Your hope for 2003 is the attitude of denial that I've been referring to. You're fooling yourself and putting your head in the sand if you think a recovery is a short time away, and a boom is just 6 quarters away...
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:03 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Yes, it is painful. Yes, I personally may not have my high paying job in the telecom industry for very long. But what right do I have to demand that rest of America (namely, McDonalds workers at $18K, school teachers at $35K, auto-workers at $50K, Pediatricians at $75K, ....) should support my job at $120K? In what sense is it "strategic" to them that I keep my $120K job at the expense of their tax dollars?

-----------

I think we've just found the last principled man in America. Not wonder they're going to lay you off in Silicon Valley. You're a threat!
switchrus 12/4/2012 | 10:12:03 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Which "rest of the world" are you talking about here?

Try the European Union with Air Bus Industries.

GÇ£But what right do I have to demand that rest of America (namely, McDonalds workers at $18K, school teachers at $35K, auto-workers at $50K, Pediatricians at $75K, ....) should support my job at $120K?GÇ¥

Demand is a very strong word, and support takes many forms. Support does not necessarily mean out right grants and bailouts like the US domestic airlines recently received. And not everyone in the industry makes $120K a year, there were lots of little people in production jobs making far less, but still very decent livings.

There are lots of tools available to a government to shape GÇ£Industrial PolicyGÇ¥ which do cost the McDonalds workers and School Teachers something, but I would say this cost is worth it to retain jobs for people in the US.

Tax code adjustments to encourage domestic production capacities in US telecommunications production and research, lots of Tax dollars going to Michigan colleges to study automotive technology right now.

Domestic content laws as trade barriers to countries that export unemployment.

DoTheMath 12/4/2012 | 10:12:04 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom What I mean by GÇ£industrial policyGÇ¥ is a country making decisions about what kinds of industry are the foundations of the economic health of a nation and lending the support of the resources of the public to those industries deemed valuable to nationGÇÖs economy. The rest of the world gets the point, high time the US does

---------------------------------------------------

Which "rest of the world" are you talking about here?

Do you mean Japan? They decided that farming, bloated construction industry, and huge multinational conglomorates were the foundations of their economy and shovelled cheap Yen to all of the above. So have they been able to protect any one of these industries? Their electronics industry is mass-migrating to China/Korea/Taiwan, and consumers in Wal-Mart are gleefully taking away $74 DVD players made in China, no thanks to Matsushita. As an American consumer, do you care that these DVD players destroy high paying jobs in Japan?

Do you mean Germany? Have you checked their unemployment rate lately? Hint: it is closer to 10% than 5%.

Do you mean France? 25% of their young men and women do not have jobs, and have never held a job. They are busy protecting "strategic" industries. When was the last time you bought anything made in France?

American steel industry is another perfect example of "success".

Yes, it is painful. Yes, I personally may not have my high paying job in the telecom industry for very long. But what right do I have to demand that rest of America (namely, McDonalds workers at $18K, school teachers at $35K, auto-workers at $50K, Pediatricians at $75K, ....) should support my job at $120K? In what sense is it "strategic" to them that I keep my $120K job at the expense of their tax dollars?


Titanic Optics 12/4/2012 | 10:12:04 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom At least the economy is more diversified, and banks more healthy. But, still, speculation and carrier debt have been seen before--in 1873! Ultimately, working in the railroad industry was a smart place to be. Being in telecom has an advantage over railways, as unlike railway wheel fabrication, a sophisticated skill base is demanded, enabling the worker to charge more for wages. But, the effects of debt and speculation must be dealt with. I, for one, don't know if I will be hanging in there for the next two years until the mess straightens itself out.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/g...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/g...

willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:07 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Unlike 1997-99, now is actually a VERY GOOD time to start a new play. They are very vulnerable. Smaller, focused financial models are needed. And there are a few (VERY FEW) VCs and financial backers who understand the "buy low, sell high" concept, who should be looking at jumping back into the segment..... Though most are no better than my Grandmother. The sandhill road crowd bought start-up stock in the same manner that my Grandmother bought "pets.com" shares at $100. It's sad to see an intelligent group behave like stupid sheep.

So... go forth and create a micro-model carrier that can capitalize on all the dislocation in the industry. Every carrier is truly vulnerable. And make it a strong, rational play!! .... But you might have to call your own grandmothers for funding, cause all the VCs are hiding under their desks, crying into their waste baskets. (PS: I actually like the VCs and have respect for a number of them. They've done a pretty good job supporting my start-up. But they really are a stupid industry full of sheep).

------------

I agree with one major reservation: Cisco/Kleiner Perkins ("TechNet") and the Bells are making a serious back-room lobbying push to kill the Telecom Act by means of the FCC's coming rules on the Broadband NPRM and the Third Triennial Review. They have lined up support within the White House and major Democrats in Congress.

I think the CLECs have, at best, a 50-50 chance of being allowed to exist. If they fail, the blame can be laid at the doorsteps of the fraudulent and corrupt California VCs, equipment vendors, executives, financiers and Regional Bells. Also at the feet of the incompetent early CLECs like NorthPoint, Rhythms, Covad, MPower + the fraud artists at WorldCom, Global Crossing, Quest, Enron and Arthur Andersen.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:07 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom No, it didn't. If it had been up to the bell
system, most of the communications innovations
of the last couple decades would not have
happened

-----------

I really, really dislike the RBOCs, but let's give them credit where credit is due. The vast majority of their subscribers get solid, reliable service. O.K., it sucks at U.S. West and parts of SBC. Yeah, I know. But those are the exceptions. I've been an RBOC customer forever and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I didn't get a dialtone.

In the past 10 years, I think I dimly recall losing dial tone once.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:08 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I don't see the state regulatory commissions as so anti-RBOC.

-----------

That's because you're not looking.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:08 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom 1. Most young people today canGÇÖt imagine the need for a union to protect a workers rights, and even in the auto industry, the UAW has not been able to GÇ£crackGÇ¥ Saturn assembly plants, because the workers are treated right.

2. When is GÇ£industrial policyGÇ¥ equate to unions anyway, in many cases unions are just plain irrelevant.

3. What I mean by GÇ£industrial policyGÇ¥ is a country making decisions about what kinds of industry are the foundations of the economic health of a nation and lending the support of the resources of the public to those industries deemed valuable to nationGÇÖs economy. The rest of the world gets the point, high time the US does

-----------

1. Agreed, which is why average non-supervisory wages have fallen about 25% since 1972, and the gap between workers and CEOs is now at the widest level in more than 100 years. This is what happens when labor has no clout.

2. You are clearly ignorant of who has pushed industrial policy in Europe and the U.S.

3. This is exactly what the unions were saying in the 1980s and 1990s. Now you want an industrial policy for telecom. Guess what? You won't get one.
BlueWater66 12/4/2012 | 10:12:09 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom It takes SERIOUS stress to force real change. Sadly, you sometimes need to absolutley tear down the old system for a new one to grow up.

In 1997-99 there was a boom of capital to support competative carriers. They tried to compete against the giants (and mostly lost). But the giants are now crumbling and they don't know how to really make money. Unlike 1997-99, now is actually a VERY GOOD time to start a new play. They are very vulnerable. Smaller, focused financial models are needed. And there are a few (VERY FEW) VCs and financial backers who understand the "buy low, sell high" concept, who should be looking at jumping back into the segment..... Though most are no better than my Grandmother. The sandhill road crowd bought start-up stock in the same manner that my Grandmother bought "pets.com" shares at $100. It's sad to see an intelligent group behave like stupid sheep.

So... go forth and create a micro-model carrier that can capitalize on all the dislocation in the industry. Every carrier is truly vulnerable. And make it a strong, rational play!! .... But you might have to call your own grandmothers for funding, cause all the VCs are hiding under their desks, crying into their waste baskets. (PS: I actually like the VCs and have respect for a number of them. They've done a pretty good job supporting my start-up. But they really are a stupid industry full of sheep).
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:12:09 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom IT WORKED!!!!
----------------
No, it didn't. If it had been up to the bell
system, most of the communications innovations
of the last couple decades would not have
happened.

let-there-be-light 12/4/2012 | 10:12:10 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I am not arguing for the gov to step in (God Forbid!)

Most of us agree that the free market is the best way, however, I think I am justified in asking:

1. does that mean that we have to accept these excesses of greed and waste?

2. is this system going to prove to be the U.S. downfall if things continue in this way? Other countries go at things in a slightly different way, and I am not convinced that their way is necessarily inferior in all respects..

Actually, Amtrak is a good example
cfaller 12/4/2012 | 10:12:10 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom jim_smith wrote:
"In short, in addition to being intelligent and having deep pockets, your businessmen will also have be passionate about the telecom industry, be willing to take BIG risks, and be visionaries.

I seriously doubt that even a single businessman with the above characteristics exists today."
------------------------------
I don't agree. There are plenty of great executives out there, it's just that none of them are in the telecom sector. When you grow up in a monopoly system, you don't learn how to be a visionary, and you certainly don't learn how to take big risks.

The telecom executive of the future has to come from outside the Bell/AT&T bloodlines. Most executives in the telecom industry today all got their start there- gee, what a coincidence, the entire industry is in shambles 6 years after full competition...

The point I was trying to make is that the telecom industry has been isolated from the real world for so long and only now is the industry learning what most other businesses & industries already know. The first step is to stop denying the mistakes & problems and address them...
Fiber Xpert 12/4/2012 | 10:12:11 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom "Puddn, Sorry to hear you can't afford the Oracle." -- Scott Raynovich

I honestly thought critical comments would help improve the quality of LightReading's products to the benefits of both readers and editors.

As you must know, most companies in this industry are struggling to survive and may think twice before spending money on subscription such as the Oracle, even if they appreciate its content.

May be I misread your comment, and that you ment no disrespect to the readers of the "free" LR.

I am an -ongoing- Oracle subscriber, I generally enjoy the LR editorial content, but still believe we could have expected more on this story at mid-day yesterday (And thanks to Eug+¬nie for the good follow-up article).

P.S.: Funny to note that readers cannot post a rating on editor's messages, don't you think?...
mcat 12/4/2012 | 10:12:11 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom We can not afford to look back. yes it worked during an era of one service [voice], simpler financial markets and ina totally non-competitive environment which was government sponsored.
Given that the conditions in which the Bell System "WORKED" can never be replicated it would be absurd to be reactive ina retrograde manner.
Our industry needs to clear itself of the fast buck artists. I mean Ebbers and his ilk.
secretIdentity 12/4/2012 | 10:12:12 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Why do RBOCs have a stranglehold on the last mile?

You're discounting cable companies and wireless. I'm not sure about wirless but I'm upbeat on cable companies.

They're closer to video-on-demand and they may be able to roll out stuff cheaper. As long as they keep the network segmented properly, they'll have competitive performance.

In the end, any extreme will be unlikely (RBOCs rule the day, or cable companies rule, or the internet is not feasible, etc.).

Begin rant:

I think the technology changes introduced over the last 7 years or so are still not understood. Everyone is desparate to avoid being left out, and the pressure makes them take action based on something they don't understand. Unfortunately, I think understanding will only come from experience. There is no substitute in this case.

End rant.
lvezz 12/4/2012 | 10:12:13 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom jim_smith wrote:
The only way to cut OPEX is by automating more and more processes. So far all attempts at
creating next-gen OSSes have either failed or are
moving ahead at excuriatingly slow speeds.

If the RBOC have the strangle-hold, why would they invest in any new OSS? The customers are theirs whether they "upgrade" or not.

rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:12:14 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Agreed on the RBOC last mile stranglehold. One analogy is, if we can get pipelines from the Caspian Sea over hostile soils to shipping lanes then somebody will be able to crack the last mile. Imagine a Bush family and all those DoD resources aimed at the last mile -- if not by 2004 at least by 2008. (That's a metaphor, not to be taken literally)

On the OPEX I think the OSS arguement is deception. Imagine if such a perfect OSS appeared or the need for all those processes disappeared. What would the RBOCs do? Do you think they could really lay off 90+% of their employees and still survive?
jim_smith 12/4/2012 | 10:12:14 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom "It seems likely to me that a few well heeled, intelligent, businessmen will pickup these pieces for cheap and build some new companies without the large OPEX."

That is wishful thinking. I think you are
underestimating the following two facts.

(a) The RBOCs have a stranglehold on the last
copper and fiber mile to residences and
businesses, and that stranglehold is getting
tighter.

(b) The only way to cut OPEX is by automating
more and more processes. So far all attempts at
creating next-gen OSSes have either failed or are
moving ahead at excuriatingly slow speeds.

So, to be successful, your "intelligent, well
heeled businessmen" have to first find a cheap
solution to the last mile, and I think wireless
or space optics is their only hope. Next, they
have to untangle the unimaginable OSS mess and
make it work.

In short, in addition to being intelligent and
having deep pockets, your businessmen will also
have be passionate about the telecom industry, be
willing to take BIG risks, and be visionaries.

I seriously doubt that even a single businessman
with the above characteristics exists today.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:12:15 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom You're wishful thinking ignores the cost aspect of communications and that technology has driven down bit distribution costs by a few orders of magnitude, but OPEX costs for incumbants remains excessive.

Your analysis would be like IBM claiming that their mainframes sales would recover once all the PC suppliers went out of business. Sure many PC vendors did go out of business, but at the end of the day IBM had to exit many, many of its businesses and convert to a service industry.

It seems likely to me that a few well heeled, intelligent, businessmen will pickup these pieces for cheap and build some new companies without the large OPEX. If you don't believe that, visit some towns in New England which closed down even though IBM and others tried to sustain their mainframe margins in the face of MIPS costs decreasing by orders of magnitude.
opto 12/4/2012 | 10:12:16 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom you usually post better than this.

There have been a lot of posts about the demise of telecom, but they are pretty much clueless. This is basic macro economics here. It is really very, very simple.

bandwidth growth has been consistently at 80-110% over the past 7 years or so. If analysts agree on anything, this is the one fact that is pretty much not in dispute. Network buildout has kept pace with that, until 1998-1999. Then, the BS internet line was that the network traffic would grow 500%. Nope. Did not happen. Instead, it chugged along at the same approx. 100% rate. But capacity was, for a time, being built at the higher assumption. Of course that could not last.

Why was capacity buildout at 500%? Because many, many investors who saw the VC returns of the early to mid 90's in telecom wanted in on the great ROI's as well. And because idiots like Bernie "Hee Haw" Ebbers were at the top of the food chain, driving absurd valuations on CLECs they were acquiring. Far and away too much money poured into telecom, simply because everyone wanted in on the same gig. The market absorbed on the order of 100 times the capital that was justified. Thing is, if people with dumb money want to throw some at an industry, every knucklehead in the business will be there to take it. And that is EXACTLY what happened. Incompetents were getting $25m with no track record and no reasonable chance for success.

So what happens? the bubble bursts, because the telecom food chain is broken.

It is very simple. Once the food chain is repaired by the knuckleheads going out of business, then real business can get going again.

Demand is there. No doubt about it. Capacity will get used up. How fast? Depends. Some routes are probably provisioned sufficently for the next 100 years. Others are already close to exhaust. The standard capacity excess of 10% in many cases is dwindling precariously close to zero. Demand will not make an instantaneous jump, but it will rise to meet the long term demand of bandwidth growth of 100% per year.

If 2001 was the year of the bubble burst, then 2002 is the year of restructuring and welching on investor and bank debt (ch. 11). To some extent, I guess we'd have to say investors got what they deserved, having invested in enterprises that were operating under "new economy" rules, (no common sense). Once that is through, probably, 2003 will dawn as the recovery period where cost of capital goes down, and business demands require network buildouts. 2004 will absolutely be a good year. Too early to call 2003, but the faster everyone with ridiculous debt goes bankrupt, the sooner we can get to the task of re-establishing the food chain.

So many have lost jobs. Of those, most did not deserve the hardship that results. But emotions aside, this really is not at all hard to understand.

Economics. Basic and simple.

Scott Raynovich 12/4/2012 | 10:12:17 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom puddn,

Sorry to hear you can't afford the Oracle.
obkenobi 12/4/2012 | 10:12:17 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Lucent's exposure is minimal.

I don't think they bought more than a few million clams worth of stuff all year
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:12:18 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Can the lobbyists and big money still bribe Washington at will?
________

It's worse than that. Didn't you see the farm bill? And the $350B coming soon for senior votes is no small "program".

The only way to stop this is for an educated public which demands an affirmative government. But with districts having only 5% registered to vote and turn outs much less than that, there is little to stop the corruption.

I don't see the state regulatory commissions as so anti-RBOC. They are dishing out those universal service dollars and getting nothing in return.

This game seems early to me and it doesn't look good for the small fish.
switchrus 12/4/2012 | 10:12:18 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom GÇ£So, when the unionized steel workers and textile workers were pleading for an "industrial policy" to protect their "good jobs" in the 1980s and 1990s, whose side were YOU on? Were you favoring the working people of the U.S., or did you dismiss these people as union hacks who should be swept into the dustbin?GÇ¥

In the 70GÇÖs and 80GÇÖs the UAW , Teamsters and others made demands that were unreasonable, it took the almost failure of Chrysler to bring sanity back to the unions. I have seen good union and bad union representation, all depends on what a union brings to the table. Accountably for action and productivity in the work place or feather bedding for the GÇ£boysGÇ¥.

GÇ¥Most of the Silicon Valley telecom/networking engineers I've ever talked to are relentlessly anti-union, pro-free market, pro-stock options, pro-business, anti-government and pro-libertarian.GÇ¥

I wonder why, ever been to a large union shop in a technology company, like say Boeing? Crap Union rules that require you to have a member of the right union classification to move a scope from one room to another, colors on your badge that allows you to be out of your work area only during break times. Most young people today canGÇÖt imagine the need for a union to protect a workers rights, and even in the auto industry, the UAW has not been able to GÇ£crackGÇ¥ Saturn assembly plants, because the workers are treated right.

Lastly, sense when is GÇ£industrial policyGÇ¥ equate to unions anyway, in many cases unions are just plain irrelevant.

What I mean by GÇ£industrial policyGÇ¥ is a country making decisions about what kinds of industry are the foundations of the economic health of a nation and lending the support of the resources of the public to those industries deemed valuable to nationGÇÖs economy. The rest of the world gets the point, high time the US does
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:20 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Free markets are one thing, industrial policy and long term jobs policy are quite another.

-------

So, when the unionized steel workers and textile workers were pleading for an "industrial policy" to protect their "good jobs" in the 1980s and 1990s, whose side were YOU on? Were you favoring the working people of the U.S., or did you dismiss these people as union hacks who should be swept into the dustbin?

Most of the Silicon Valley telecom/networking engineers I've ever talked to are relentlessly anti-union, pro-free market, pro-stock options, pro-business, anti-government and pro-libertarian. Until they can't make the mortgage payment!

Now that the shoe's on the other foot, "industrial policy" seems like some ingenious new economy idea, doesn't it? Do you have any idea how hypocritical this all sounds?
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:20 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Willy; play out the mass consolidation and remonopolization, including impenetrable sweetheart deals between media owners, ILECs, cable cos, and long distance and tell me what happens to your friendly CLEC? Where does the 1996 Telco Act stand after that?

------------

The "revelation" of WorldCom's massive fraud plays in the RBOCs' hands and increases the chances that the telephone network is re-monopolized but WITHOUT regulation. This will be a sign as to whether there's been any change. Can the lobbyists and big money still bribe Washington at will?

The argument for this proposition is self-evident. The argument against it is that the state regulatory commissions hate the idea of giving everything back to the RBOCs, and a lot of those commissions are in large, important Republican states where there could be quite an outcry if the end product is the strengthing of the monopolies.

Should be interesting to watch. I am really unsure in my own mind on how this one will go.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:12:21 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Willy; play out the mass consolidation and remonopolization, including impenetrable sweetheart deals between media owners, ILECs, cable cos, and long distance and tell me what happens to your friendly CLEC? Where does the 1996 Telco Act stand after that?
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:22 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Call me a commie if you like, but all this stuff about

"markets correct their mistakes"

"we'll be leaner and meaner when this is all over"

"Leave the market to find the right balance"

etc. etc.

is beginning to sound a little empty right now

---------

Q: What do you call a liberal Democrat from Silicon Valley?

A: A libertarian engineer whose stock options will never be worth a nickel?
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:22 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom We don't need the govt. to step in, except to jail those crooks

---------

Continuing enforcement of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as well as the Telecom Act, might be worthwhile, too. If there's one group NOT to listen to, it is the Cisco/Kleiner "TechNet" shysters. They are culpable in a major way; in a system with any kind of justice, we'd be hearing the sound of doors slamming in their face all over Washington, and then throughout America. They have sold everyone a bill of goods. Let's not let them do it a second time.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:22 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Are you suggesting telecom is not a vital part of the economy, or are you just saying the people who helped to build it are disposable, or is it that you just don't like "bellheads"?

----------

Telecom is a vital part of the economy. As is agriculture, military production, transportation, homebulding, retailing, health care, energy, tourism and education, to name a few others. My message is this: Stop being so "ethno-centric," so to speak. Telecom doesn't have a superior claim. It's not magic. It's not immune from law, budgeting, physics or shifting priorities.

As for "bellheads," I neither like them nor dislike them. I recognize no real distinction between "bellheads" and "netheads," by the way. To both, I say: You've wasted enough money. Your companies, your "leaders," your financiers and your promoters have screwed themselves, their investors, their shareholders, their customers, their partners and the country.

At the very least, I ask one thing: Don't even think about asking for a taxpayer bailout, much less demanding one because your industry is so "special." Rather, it might be a really good idea to tell the truth to yourselves and go from there. Oh, and forget about your stock options. They are never coming back.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:12:24 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Whatever jobs are lost now will not return, and people should realize this and make decisions accordingly...
_________________

This is good advice. New jobs will enable productivity or efficiencies in other inefficient industries. Bit distribution jobs will go the way of the long shoremen and will not return.
switchrus 12/4/2012 | 10:12:24 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom "Denying the problem and putting your head in the sand won't help you or anyone else in the industry move forward. The industry is in the process of permanently contracting, and the best thing to do would be to acknowledge that and move on. Whatever jobs are lost now will not return, and people should realize this and make decisions accordingly..."

ThatGÇÖs sort of a good point, job losses are part of the business cycle, itGÇÖs natural in some ways, in others itGÇÖs artificial and driven by lack of an coherent US industrial policy and corporate greed.

For example, how many GÇ£CoopersGÇ¥ are employed today in America ? A GÇ£CooperGÇ¥ was a person that made barrels for transporting goods. Other packaging material came along, Coopers were no longer needed and the job disappeared.

Same thing almost happened in the 70GÇÖs and 80GÇÖs with US domestic car manufacturing. Mid 70GÇÖs cars were junk almost from the time they left the factory. US industrial policy and the number of jobs involved in the automobile industry caused the US government to aid Chrysler, and others in the industry.

Brings us to the Telecom Industry today, good paying jobs, skilled work, low pollution, jobs with a future. The industry now faces lots of pressure to move production off shore, decreased demand from traditional customers and companies going under all over the place. Right now is one of critical juncture points, what is US industrial policy, does the US want to see this industry dry up and blow away. If the hard times in the industry do not end soon, thereGÇÖs not going to be a whole heck of a lot of industrial base left when rational times return. Free markets are one thing, industrial policy and long term jobs policy are quite another.
myresearch 12/4/2012 | 10:12:25 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I start to wonder what kind of people are on the top of these fine US companies.

Put youself in the position: do you think you will do it:

1) Your worth is over 100 millions, and you try to save 8% of sales tax ($1 million) on paintings by sending them to a different state and ask your employees to sign false statements.

2) You are worth more than $200m, and you are on your way to your Xmas holiday in your private jet, and you stop en route, call your broker and sell 4000 shares (total $200,000)

I can understand if a poor guy tries to save his entire 401k and did an insider trading, but when you are worth more than $200m, and your reputation is everything???

Myabe I am wrong, maybe you had some much money because of they keep doing like that, maybe ...



dsb 12/4/2012 | 10:12:25 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom IT WORKED!!!!
cfaller 12/4/2012 | 10:12:26 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Anyone ever been through a rehab program? What is the first thing you need to do to start the recovery process? Acknowledge that you have a problem!

A lot of you keep hoping that a recovery is just around the corner, but the reality is that whatever 'recovery' happens, 1) it won't be for at least 12-18 months, end user demand won't pick up before then, and 2) the increase in demand won't be large enough to keep all these telecoms alive.

The telecom industry has a problem: it has planned for, borrowed money for, and built network for a future that will not arrive. The future of the industry lies in 10-15% growth, not 50-100% growth. 10-15% will only sustain one or two extra competitors to AT&T, Sprint, and whatever WorldCom will be. Only one or two of the following can survive: Level 3, Global Crossing, Williams, Broadwing, Qwest. It might be advisable for some of these carriers to give up the ghost and liquidate.

To some of you, this may sound familiar, and it should. I've had this argument with many of you, starting early last year. A lot of you felt that the reduction in carrier spending was a mere hiccup, and the boom would resume 1-2 quarters from now. Here we are, a year and a half later, and judging by a lot of the posts begging for government intervention, the industry still has not grown up and acknowledged its mistakes.

Denying the problem and putting your head in the sand won't help you or anyone else in the industry move forward. The industry is in the process of permanently contracting, and the best thing to do would be to acknowledge that and move on. Whatever jobs are lost now will not return, and people should realize this and make decisions accordingly...
fusionboy 12/4/2012 | 10:12:26 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Are you suggesting telecom is not a vital part of the economy, or are you just saying the people who helped to build it are disposable, or is it that you just don't like "bellheads"?
____________________________________________

Telcom is a vital part of the economy in the same manner as the airlines, railways & highways. For most of America it's vital that they work - and that's all most Americans care about. You can argue about the number of workers hurt, etc. by the downturn - telcom's by no means the only industry hurting in America. Look at the textile & garment industries if you want to see carnage.
photon_mon 12/4/2012 | 10:12:26 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I stand corrected, puddnhead, perhaps
he CAN do 2 things at once! Well, almost.
This is precisely why I want to lobby to
ban pretzels from airliners. Please forward
donations on behalf of this cause to Lightreading
so that they may applied to this initiative.
Thank you for your support!
photon_mon 12/4/2012 | 10:12:26 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom So sorry, puddnhead. Forgive me.
I lost track of my investigations!
Thanks.
puddnhead_wilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:26 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Uh, the SEC Qwest investigation was actually announced some time ago, photon_mon. It's jut that people are sitting up and paying a lot more attention to it now.
puddnhead_wilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:27 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom >Besides, let us not hold our breath waiting
for the Bush administration to tend to anything that is not terrorism-related. It is clear that
they intend to ride (and whip) that particular
pony until the next election (also because chewing gum and walking at the same time seems to so far prove elusive as well

Don't you mean eating pretzels and watching TV? :)
puddnhead_wilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:27 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom >Maybe Light Reading should be renamed Late Writing....

Or maybe : "Light Advertising?" More and more, articles here are sounding to sound like ads for Opticle Oracle. The attempt in this one to make it sound like OO somehow predicted the EBITDA fraud at WCOM ("Many of WorldCom's potential accounting and financial problems have been detailed by Light Reading's own paid research product, Optical Oracle") is particularly pathetic. I don't subscribe, but I'm still willing to bet this "potential problem" was not forseen at all by the "oracle."
opto 12/4/2012 | 10:12:27 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom > Ebbers had a Ponzi scheme, where he was paying way way too much for the acquisitions. Much of what is "lost" went to the sellers.
> this scheme created a mountain of debt that was constraining network builds
> Chapter 11 is the best thing that could happen
>>> the company will continue to operate
>>> the customers most likely will not leave
>>> someone will step in with a new management team, cleaned-up balance sheet, and run this company like it should have been run.
>>> without the debt (previous investors are now utterly screwed), network builds will occur more quickly

>>> Net/Net: long term prognosis is better with them in ch.11. Capex will return quicker. Them trying to climb out of the hole was not believable. w/o debt, WorldCom is a big company with lots of customers and nowhere to go but up.
let-there-be-light 12/4/2012 | 10:12:31 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Call me a commie if you like, but all this stuff about

"markets correct their mistakes"

"we'll be leaner and meaner when this is all over"

"Leave the market to find the right balance"

etc. etc.

is beginning to sound a little empty right now.
photon_mon 12/4/2012 | 10:12:31 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom
Well I was wrong. I thought AT&T would be next,
but lo and behold, Qwest came along with this
development --- just to make me look bad.
See below for the article.

BTW --- QWest is down to $1.71 per share.

So now, do I snap up a share or two at this
hard-to-resist price, or do I head down the
street to 7-11 for a Slurpee ... decisions,
decisions.

-------------------------------------------

SEC INVESTIGATES QWEST
In other company news, The Wall Street Journal reports that the Securities
and Exchange Commission is taking a tough stance on how telecom firm Qwest
Communications International accounted for as much as $1.4 billion in sales
of fiber-optic capacity and whether it was proper for the company to
recognize the revenue right away. Qwest's share price plunged 34 percent.

broadbandboy 12/4/2012 | 10:12:31 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom BobbyMax: SHUT UP!

broadbandboy 12/4/2012 | 10:12:31 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom "Call me a commie if you like, but all this stuff about "markets correct their mistakes" "we'll be leaner and meaner when this is all over" "Leave the market to find the right balance" etc. etc. is beginning to sound a little empty right now."

---------------------------

I don't blame you for feeling that way. A lot of us won't be around when its over. I would hate to be on a vendor's MCI/Worldcom account team right about now.

Still, the best thing for the industry is for some of these dying service providers to fail, and get out fast. They are living quarter to quarter, undercutting the rest of us as they cling to life.

I see a huge opportunity for AT&T right now. There is still no RBOC that can compete nationally, so AT&T could go after the the big MCI enterprise businesses that survived Ebbers ravages.

BBboy

broadbandboy 12/4/2012 | 10:12:32 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom "The economic value is not in the conduit but in the traffic that passes over the conduit. Gov't will have to step in."

--------------------------------------

Markets correct their mistakes. When it happens, its rapid and ruthless. Govts. perpetuate their mistakes for decades. Amtrak is a perfect example.

The telecom industry is going through a massive restructuring. When its done, we will be leaner and meaner and even more globally competitive.

We don't need the govt. to step in, except to jail those crooks.

BBboy
photon_mon 12/4/2012 | 10:12:33 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Good one, Willy ...
I should've known better.
If we had a kangaroo court,
my wallet would've been a
tad lighter. Thanks.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:33 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I feel sorry for the vast numbers of innocent
folks (employees, vendors, et. al.) who will
suffer as a result of WCOM's implosion.

--------

Here's an oxymoron for you: "Innocent vendor." It's like "ethical venture capitalist."
let-there-be-light 12/4/2012 | 10:12:33 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Willywi,

Not sure what you mean by the follwoing:

As for the government "having the step in," I have a message to the telecom people on this board: You aren't as important or as vital as you seem to think you are. Step #1 is to become a little humbler, which is going to be a BIG cultural and psychological adjustment after having been told how way-cool your were.

Are you suggesting telecom is not a vital part of the economy, or are you just saying the people who helped to build it are disposable, or is it that you just don't like "bellheads"?

Ususally, I understand (and like) your posts, but not this time.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:34 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Time to recognize that the Telecom sector produces many jobs in the US and needs a little help right now

---------

Q: What happened to the proud, independent, libertarian California engineers who spent so much time telling us the the Internet would make government obsolete?

A: They are now standing in line with every other welfare case, asking for a handout. WATCH YOUR WALLETS!!
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:34 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom The economic value is not in the conduit but in the traffic that passes over the conduit. Gov't will have to step in.

---------

The established telephone companies are doing fine. No need for Uncle Sucker to step in. The future is a toss-up between formally giving it all back to the RBOCs, but without any oversight of the monopolies (oh boy, people will LOVE that!!) or letting the CLECs continue to compete.

It was a close race before WCOM's fraud hit the headlines. I'd say this is a big factor in the RBOCs' factor.

As for the government "having the step in," I have a message to the telecom people on this board: You aren't as important or as vital as you seem to think you are. Step #1 is to become a little humbler, which is going to be a BIG cultural and psychological adjustment after having been told how way-cool your were.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:12:35 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom The republican party in general right now favors
the RBOCs. There are a couple democrats in
the senate who hate the RBOCs as a "consumer
issue", but aside from them there isn't much
of anyone who is willing to stand up on this
issue.

I think the weakness in the long-distance
companies (financially and otherwise) will make
it more likely that the RBOCs are going to
get deregulation on their terms.

-----------

I agree with this. MCI was the foremost advocate for telecom competition, and now it's been corrupted. If I were the RBOCs looking for re-monopolization, and their Cisco/Kleiner Perkins allies ("TechNet"), I'd be feeling good today.
maryhadalambda 12/4/2012 | 10:12:35 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Since telecom isn't making anybpody any money, yet it's considered an essential service, the government will step in and subsidize it or take it over.

Consider the government builds and maintains roads, rail, utilities, etc.

The economic value is not in the conduit but in the traffic that passes over the conduit. Gov't willhave to step in.
photon_mon 12/4/2012 | 10:12:35 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Twistall, I've enjoyed your posts. Probably
because I tend to agree with them. But let
us remember that jail time is for the little
people!

So that sinister element within WCOM's mailrooms -
the ones recklessly distributing potentially illegal and incriminating correspondence (and
conspiring to keep those naiive but good-hearted
souls in the management ranks in the dark as to
their nefarious activities)--- better beware! We're onto you! Especially if you are of Arabic
descent. Go USA!

Besides, let us not hold our breath waiting
for the Bush administration to tend to anything that is not terrorism-related. It is clear that
they intend to ride (and whip) that particular
pony until the next election (also because
chewing gum and walking at the same time seems to
so far prove elusive as well - but I digress).

As an FYI, if you want a painful and detailed
recounting of the FCC's historical ineptitude, I
recommend that you check out a recent(?)
article from Forbes (4/29/02 issue, page 78)
entitled "Commander of the Airwaves". With an
oversight / policy-making agency which was
(according to this story) still using rotary
phones until the mid-90's and seems to engage in
rampant nepotism (Chairman Michael Powell just happens to be the son of --- you guessed it --- Colin Powell) to boot. In fairness, maybe it's
not bias. Could be that he p*ssed off the old
man, and this is his punishment.

So don't expect government to ride to the rescue
anytime soon. The telecom business is just
mirroring the complacency and cronyism that
exists throughout government and business in
general.

I feel sorry for the vast numbers of innocent
folks (employees, vendors, et. al.) who will
suffer as a result of WCOM's implosion.
Unfortunately the telecom "snow-globe" has to
once again go through its cyclical shakeup,
by the hand of human nature as usual. Call it
a hunch, but gee, here I am thinking that there
are folks at AT&T right now sh*tting their pants.

I agree with Sparx that there is
(hopefully, if we haven't totally regressed as a
species) good in the mid-to-long term (you know,
after the Great Depression) in terms of improving
the overall business and ethics model --- and
giving the little squirts another turn at the big
table.

Let's all pledge now to make a collective point
of remembering the names of these schmucks who
created these messes, for the time 3-4 years from
now when they attempt to re-emerge and reinvent
themselves.

Whew! Cancel today's therapy --- I feel like a
new mon!
lightrider 12/4/2012 | 10:12:36 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom BobbyMax,
WoW! what an insight on workers from third world countries?! cover your face when you say that again, coz ppl might spit on you.
switchrus 12/4/2012 | 10:12:36 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom "The telcom companies generally seem to give
money to both sides. There is something like
an auction that goes on."

I think you are right for the most part, but wasn't WC based in Miss.? I would guess that Bill C. got more than his fair share from WC being a Southern company. Bush was and is tight with the oil industry and many of his money came from there.

A few other thoughts for the Feds to consider if they do get off the dime and do something for this industry.

Deal with manufacturing flight for optic components from the US to cheap off-shore production countries. Off shore labor removes Americans from jobs which fuels our economy.

How about thinking about:

a)Tax incentives for building production capability in the US using automation capabilities to offset the labor cost disadvantage of the US, target incentives to encourage development of production capacity in high unemployment areas. ItGÇÖs better to give our kids jobs with a future instead of a jobs at Walmart.
b)Domestic content laws. If you want to sell the services of your network to the US Government, you have to have a certain level of domestically produced parts.

Time to recognize that the Telecom sector produces many jobs in the US and needs a little help right now.
netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:12:36 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom > So MANY telecom jobs have been lost all over the US

It seems way too cynical by my own standards and it is quite possible that I will loose my job too, however, there is a question I could not resist asking.

Look I can still hear a dial tone when I pick a phone and I can still access the web - is this job loss simply a manifestation of sharp productivity growth in the telecom ?

Thanks,

Netskeptic

erbiumfiber 12/4/2012 | 10:12:36 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom skeptic wrote:

>>I think the weakness in the long-distance
companies (financially and otherwise) will make
it more likely that the RBOCs are going to
get deregulation on their terms<<

I think they already got it on their own terms what with the way the '96 Telecom Act has been enforced (lol).

But, seriously, I think you're right- the RBOCs (or ILECs or whatever we call them these days) are going to use this to their advantage...
mplsrocks 12/4/2012 | 10:12:37 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Hi Bobbymax

You will be well advised not to put the blame on people of third world countries...

It is a well known fact that these very people have played a critical and acknowledged role in the significant technological advances made in US.

If you dont have anybody to blame then just keep your trap shut..dont go about throwing dirt on a specific group of people...

mplsrocks
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:12:37 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Right now Bush is too busy calling for an investigation into WCOM, grateful that for once it's not a large corporation in Texas that contributed money to his campaign (I'm guessing that WCOM gave more to the democrats but could be dead wrong...).
------------------------
The telcom companies generally seem to give
money to both sides. There is something like
an auction that goes on.

The republican party in general right now favors
the RBOCs. There are a couple democrats in
the senate who hate the RBOCs as a "consumer
issue", but aside from them there isn't much
of anyone who is willing to stand up on this
issue.

I think the weakness in the long-distance
companies (financially and otherwise) will make
it more likely that the RBOCs are going to
get deregulation on their terms.


erbiumfiber 12/4/2012 | 10:12:38 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Right now Bush is too busy calling for an investigation into WCOM, grateful that for once it's not a large corporation in Texas that contributed money to his campaign (I'm guessing that WCOM gave more to the democrats but could be dead wrong...).

After the disastrous consequences of the 1996 Telecom Act that gave us the Global Crossings, etc. I am not sure that we can look to the government to find a solution to this mess.

So MANY telecom jobs have been lost all over the US (I was laid off earlier this year by a start-up...) that 17,000 is a drop in the bucket. Ask those laid-off LU and NT employees how much the government is doing for them (well, if you were laid off AFTER September 11th you do qualify for something like a big extra 13 weeks of unemployment; in my state the max. $ amount per week is $280- doesn't go very far Working as a contractor for a couple of different places now...). I admire your faith in politicians' sympathy for all the "little guys" caught in the maelstrom of the current telecom disaster...I feel bad for all the H1-B visa holders who won't find work in time to avoid having to leave the country...
Twistall 12/4/2012 | 10:12:38 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I hope they ride these charletans out of town on a rail. It's time these people really believe that positions of trust require responsibility...that they're not just lying to a bunch of suckers at some back room poker game.

I hope they'll still think it's funny when they're cooling their heels in the clink while their families are out selling matchsticks to buy a lump of coal.
switchrus 12/4/2012 | 10:12:38 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I admire your faith in politicians' sympathy for all the "little guys" caught in the maelstrom of the current telecom disaster...

I have no faith in politicians caring much about the "little guys", I suspect that just like the airlines, telecommunications is one of those industries that keeps the economic indicators moving the right way. It is in politicians best interest to be seen to be doing something about the melt down in the industry, if for no other reason to restore confidence in the economy in general by doing some sensable pump priming.

Technology lead the boom times of the 90's and I would guess that few incumbants will sit on their hands as the recession is deepened by the WC bomb and the general down turn in the industry. Bail out, I don't think so, but new spending, tax breaks that sort of thing, easy to do.

Remember why Bush 41 only did one term in office?
BobbyMax 12/4/2012 | 10:12:38 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom There is so much arbitrariness in the enforcement of laws it is not only MCI, but probably there are over 10,000 companies that are actively engaged in activities that are injurious to Wall Street and investors.

Corruptions related to stock options, CEO salaries, employment and promotions, mis-statements regarding companies products, technologies and services are widely rampant. Shareholders are largely helpless as there is no place for them to lodge complaints.

The Federal Government institutions such as SEC and Department of Justice are largely corrupt and very inept. No one cannot even get through the beaurocracies of these agencies.

This corruption is not new and has prevelant for decades. The import of foreign workers from third world countries have made the situation worst. Another serious problem is that the crooks even when caught are not punished. Resignation is not enough, they should go to jail.

In our country, we tend to trust Board of Directors. The investors do not know that these Directors are as corrupt as the company management. If one one can manage to get on the board of six or seven companies,the earnigs of this individual can be as high as $300,000 per year. In many instances, they do not have to do any thing. these Board Members are offered many other fringe benefits. One can go on and on. In some countries like China, these criminals would never come out.

In Calornia alone, there were over 300 start-ups
established by workers from third world countries. By hook or crook and lying, these start-ups were able to get money and in most cases. They were able to sell these start-up to other US companies. The US companies who acquired these companies did not make a penny. Many crooks from these world countries are still operating because of our ignorance and tolerance.

As is known, WorldCom acquired about 70 companies since it came into existence. These rapid acquisitions, put WorldCom into debt of $32 Billion.

AT&T, Lucent, Nortel and wcores of other companies appoibnted CEOs that were largely incompetent. These companies have strange board members whose expertise and usefulness is questionable. Nobody is watching the store and that is why CEOs, Senior Company Management and Board of Directors are stealing billions of dollars.

Recently John Chambers of Cisco promoted 4 people from a company called Cresendo Communations to very senior level VP positions. Who would believe that a start-up company would have four outstanding managers and technologists among a workforce oif 40,000 workers. The selection process is simply corrupt and dishonest. This kind of thing leads to croniasm and other forms of corruption.

It is hoped that the form of corruption that exists in the US companies would not spread to other parts of the world.
Sparxe 12/4/2012 | 10:12:39 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom

Hello Everyone. I also posted this on the CORV board. Because its appropriate for this thread, in particular "silver lining" I also placed it here.
_______________________________________________

Today's collapse of WorldCom and Adelphia while horrid on the surface, may be a good thing for telecom, and other industry vendors.

Every action has a reaction (they are not always opposite). WCOM was the second largest carrier. Adelphia the sixth largest Cable op. These are significant players, not CLECs or startups. Their problems were both related to management integrity. Yet both had good businesses, customers and decent employees and managers.

Both will probably live on, in scaled down versions, due to their brand names. I use MCI and will continue. Coming on the heels of GBX and numerous other telecom failures, here is what may happen:

1. WCOM and GBX, even if they continue as going business's will absolutley 100%, lose ALL Govement and Miltary projects. Giving rival carriers a reason to upgrade.
2. Its only a matter of time before refugee Engineers and Managers emerge from these outfits with business plans on how they can do it better. The VCs will respond to plans that make sense.
3. Incumbent and remaining carriers will be looking harder, at new ways to divert consumers attention. New Services are usually the preferred method.
4. There's more Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Kozwalski's out there. People who can take a pile of junk and turn them into a winner, and a buyer of new tech.
5. Capex diversion was a big part of these scams. GBX and WCOM. along with others not yet discovered have only been SAYING they were building networks, they were probably taking vacations and cash in many cases. Therefore, expect to see some REAL buying to go along with the spending.
6. Its a new dawn, the old boy network is on the run. Expect to see a new breed of buyer that actually looks before they buy from the same slug who's been lining their pockets and delivering mediocre products..

Change is good, don't you think?

Sparxe Nj
switchrus 12/4/2012 | 10:12:39 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Does anyone think that the US government will sit by and do nothing for the Telecom Industry now that the WC bomb has exploded? 17,000 to be let go by WC, SBC had cuts a few months ago. Stock market is going lower, confidence in the economy is waning, elections in the fall. Bet your bippie politicians will start doing things...FAST!

A few predictions of what will happen over the next few months:

1)GÇ£GovenetGÇ¥, or what ever the heck they are calling the new secure government communications network will move front and center, lots of progress, probably fast track the whole thing. Tom Ridge, new cabinet member will be all over the place getting it going.
2)Tax incentives for increased capital expenditures by Tel COGÇÖs.

Any other guesses?
cyclical 12/4/2012 | 10:12:39 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom we can understand your depth of knowledge of Caspian. In other words, Caspian is a dead company per se, it will be closed in a quarter or two.
let-there-be-light 12/4/2012 | 10:12:39 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom If Enron caused some reaction, I think this will have an even greater reaction. With Enron, shareholders and employees lost, which is bad enough, and the politicians reacted as one would expect.

Here we are talking about part of the communications infrastructure of a nation, which becoming ever-more critical to the success of almost any industry you can think of (perhaps especially banking). I do believe that this is a different story altogether.
mplsrocks 12/4/2012 | 10:12:39 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom With the impending bankruptcy of Worldcom and bad state of affairs at QWest, which have been claimed at one time to be Juniper's biggest customers, Juniper is gonna have a really hard time for the next few quarters. And it really hands the initiative back to Junipers competitors like Cisco and startups like Caspian etc..

Comments welcome

mplsrocks
tommyfw 12/4/2012 | 10:12:40 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom In the immortal words of Jackie Chiles, Esquire (from Seinfeld):

"You are LYING! Lyin' and Laughin' Laughin' and Lyin'!!"
erbiumfiber 12/4/2012 | 10:12:40 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Sorry, I posted the same link right after you-it's amazing how now apparently no telecom equipment vendors are exposed to WCOM when in the past they couldn't wait to shout from the rooftops that WCOM was a customer...
DarkWriting 12/4/2012 | 10:12:40 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom WorldCom, Global Crossing, Qwest.... yeah, let's leave our telecommunications system to the free markets.

DW
geof hollingsworth 12/4/2012 | 10:12:40 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom It is true that WCOM (and Qwest) have customers and revenues, although how much of either is now open to debate, I guess. They are likely to be leaving in droves as I type, which will be a silver lining but primarily for the remaining strong service providers, pretty much down to AT&T at this point. I suppose that the resulting capacity strain will lead AT&T to buy more gear at some point, but that'snot going to offset capex at WCOM and Qwest going to zero. And expect the availablity of financing to the service provider sector to be further constrained, which will reduce capex even further (can't buy what they can't finance). There's no good news here for the equipment sector IMO.
erbiumfiber 12/4/2012 | 10:12:41 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Thanks. Apparently all the telecom suppliers are falling all over themselves in a rush to reassure their shareholders that they have "minimal exposure" to WCOM. I don't believe anything said by any corporate spokesperson at this point. Well, we'll see exactly who the creditors are if (when?) WCOM files Chapter 11. Here's the link to the Yahoo article:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/020626...
fusionboy 12/4/2012 | 10:12:41 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I'm with you. Just the simple fact that WC will lose customers means that someone will have to pick them up. The simple process of having telecom customers switching companies on a large scale would have to spark something in the way of sales of hardware.
____________________________________________

Judging from the comments of sysadmins and the like elsewhere, their are a number of customers planning to jump ship immediately. Given the amount of distressed telcom assets available now(equipment & Global Crossing, etc.), or shortly to be once WCOM declares bankruptcy(inevitable) the likelihood of an increase in equipment sales large enough to offset the loss of WCOM's CapEx is highly, highly unlikely. I'd lay off the telcom KoolAid - after 2 years it's bad for the health.
let-there-be-light 12/4/2012 | 10:12:41 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Suppliers say exposure to WorldCom is minimal

(All of a sudden??!?)

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/020626...

Fiber Xpert 12/4/2012 | 10:12:42 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Well, not much news from this article...
And it took Light Reading all morning to put together this story?

This has all been said in many other media since early this morning. I got a lot more (a lot earlier) from financial web sites.

My job is to monitor the telecom market and, quite frankly, I find Light Reading sometimes tends to be slow on the editorial button.

Are the editors doing this part time?
Maybe Light Reading should be renamed Late Writing....
geof hollingsworth 12/4/2012 | 10:12:42 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Nortel and Juniper. You also have to figure that Qwest may be guilty of the same practices (and they have the same auditor, and they also recently fired their high-profile non-telcom-background CEO), and if so they could both be entering a new chapter in their corporate history (the 11th one). Qwest's biggest suppliers are Cienna and Juniper again, with Nortel and Lucent to a lesser extent (and on the telco side, which will probably be less effected if they file).

opt_dhogan 12/4/2012 | 10:12:43 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom ***
Could there be a GÇ£Silver LiningGÇ¥ in this cloud?
***

I'm with you. Just the simple fact that WC will lose customers means that someone will have to pick them up. The simple process of having telecom customers switching companies on a large scale would have to spark something in the way of sales of hardware.

Maybe I'm seeing the glass as 1/10th full instead of 9/10ths empty...

-d
fiber_diet 12/4/2012 | 10:12:43 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom I could have obtained most of your story straight from yahoo business. How about doing some real work and finding out and writing a story on who the major suppliers are, what type of financial exposures the suppliers have, and what this means to impacted suppliers. It shouldn't be to hard to find this out with a little work.

I'm aware of one telcom company in TX who derives most of their revenue from WCOM.
LED 12/4/2012 | 10:12:44 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom
at the rate at which our telecom companies
and wild forests are going up in flames... I suppose we have to start learning
the lost art of smoke-signaling again...

tss 12/4/2012 | 10:12:44 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom
What were these guys thinking when they
tried to hide the 6 billion dollar pumpkin
in a bowl of rice?

Can these guys be classified as sane?
vermillion 12/4/2012 | 10:12:44 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Now everyone sing along: "Blame Canada! Blame Canada!"

"Ebbers, a *Canadian* who attended Mississippi College in Clinton on a basketball scholarship, built WorldCom from a small long-distance company into a telecommunications force through more than 60 acquisitions in the past 15 years. "

Source:
http://www.nandotimes.com/busi...
switchrus 12/4/2012 | 10:12:45 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Could there be a GÇ£Silver LiningGÇ¥ in this cloud?

World Com which is what the number two provider of Long Distance services in the US has well and truly stepped on it, and how will business and others respond?

GÇ£Run for the DoorGÇ¥ as fast as you can is my prediction, which means the business that was at World Com has to go somewhere else. Those smart companies in the Tel Co space will act and have the sales force out in droves trying to pick up WC accounts, loading up their networks in the short term and sparking limited network build up as capacity gets used up. If you were supplying gear to WC youGÇÖre toast, with all the FUD which will be flying around WC for quite some time, network development will be effectively frozen there until the dust settles, or the company gets sold. A very long time.

To me this is like an un-natural disaster which will cause spending by those companies able to spend but holding off due to the slow down in telecom.
MP_UK 12/4/2012 | 10:12:45 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Hmmm? "...shocked by these discoveries." I wonder if that should read "...shocked to be discovered."

Also from the article...
"Scott Sullivan, the chief financial officer and secretary of WorldCom, has been fired. The company has also accepted the resignation of David Myers as senior vice president and comptroller."

I just guessing wildly here, but I doubt these two guys are exactly strapped for cash even if they are unemployed, I'd also bet they suffer no more than a public shaming for their part in this debacle - it's alright for some...
erbiumfiber 12/4/2012 | 10:12:46 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Ugly, ugly, ugly.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020626...

If they don't get the new infusion of $5 B that they were looking for, the outlook is apparently rather dim...

Will banks throw good money after bad in the hopes that they might get their "bad" money back?

Besides banks, what telecom equipment vendors have the most exposure to WCOM? Anybody know??
maryhadalambda 12/4/2012 | 10:12:46 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Amazing how a guy from the poorest state in the nation, with no telecom background, could have led the nation's second largest long-distance network. What's more amazing is the $300 billion or so investors poured into this company. Damn, that's gotta hurt.

let-there-be-light 12/4/2012 | 10:12:47 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Actually, the implications of this go way beyond telecoms.

In Europe, someone has called this the "World Bomb" story.

Unfortunate as this situation is, the U.S. is really going to have to fight to regain credibility of its business practices.

Just when we thought things couldn't get much worse. At least, some of the analysts have downgraded Worldcom now (one of them apologized that the downgrade from "strong buy" came a little too late)
let-there-be-light 12/4/2012 | 10:12:48 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Where is Harvey Mudd when we need him?

Harvey is probably laughing all the way to bank.
geof hollingsworth 12/4/2012 | 10:12:48 PM
re: WorldCom Goes Boom Reminds me of Claude Rains lines in Cassablanca.

"Gambling? In Rick's place? I'm Shocked!"

Enter one of the waiters with a bag who says

"Your winnings, sir!"

Where is Harvey Mudd when we need him?
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE