Page 1 / 2   >   >>
cruiser 12/4/2012 | 10:39:56 PM
re: Qwest: Ciao Nacchio? he's not mr. sunshine, no, and like every other carrier on the planet he's guilty of some questionable accounting and revenue sharing stuff...

but this guy bought an rboc before rbocs were cool (they're still not cool but they're cooler than ixc's and clecs). they paid a lot for uswest but the thing is a genuine asset. level 3 is dying. global crossing / fronteir is dead. att? without cable they are just a long distance company and will be snatched up by someone by late 03. yes, an american institution more than a company, att will no longer be an independent company. wcom? hurtin' for certain. so why should qwest get rid of the guy who set them up to survive? they're the only ixc that will remain independent and it's because of joe. you don't find that kind of vision and initiative just anywhere. they will never replace him.
Vesting 12/4/2012 | 10:39:52 PM
re: Qwest: Ciao Nacchio? You are obviously neither a stock holder or a retired or active Qwest/US WEST employee.
optblues 12/4/2012 | 10:39:48 PM
re: Qwest: Ciao Nacchio? Is this a US West v. Qwest thing? What did Nacchio do to upset the former US West crowd? Did he change the retirement benefits? I mean besides kill the stock while watching the other RBOCs hold somewhat better, he's been great.

And if I was a Qwest shareholder, I would say that Nacchio pulled off the coup of the year by takig over USWest to gain cash flow like he did.
let-there-be-light 12/4/2012 | 10:39:46 PM
re: Qwest: Ciao Nacchio? Nacchio for qwest?
Nachos for rest?

Who cares?

Bring on the movies!!
fiber_diet 12/4/2012 | 10:39:44 PM
re: Qwest: Ciao Nacchio? Qwest would no doubt be in a similar state as Global Crossing or Williams had it NOT been for the US West acquisition. US West is a steady stream of cash flow. Despite the bad press about RBOCs, they do generate lots of cash.

I noticed in the article that Nachio stands to gain (I'll be nice with the selection of the word 'gain') from the investor community with his compensation package. Doesn't this manifests itself to aggressive accounting? Price target is reached, he cashes out, bails, and 'its not my problem'.

I think the real victims here have been the retirees and and loyal US West workers. I don't know much about how the benefits and relationship to stock performance are packaged, but I would speculate that US West's stock would have performed much better without Qwest.

Does anyone believe Qwest will go under?
deepciscothroat 12/4/2012 | 10:39:43 PM
re: Qwest: Ciao Nacchio? As a long-time Cisco Employee, all this banter about Nacchio really amuses me. Let's look at the facts

1. Joe is a big blow hard that has not innovated anything.
2. He lined his pockets and destroyed shareholder value
3. Everyone on his payroll is on the take from vendors. Mohabbi is a relentless shake-down artists
4. Qwest is toast. The question is who will eat them
5. Frank Dubzcek is a relentness, no-nothing gadfly. He keeps bragging about building IBM global services with Sam Palmissano. Call Sam and ask him if the fat windbag did a thing.
6. US WEST sucked even more than Qwest. They sold of the individual assets (wireless and cable to make a few execs rich)

imo - throat
fleet_line 12/4/2012 | 10:39:42 PM
re: Qwest: Ciao Nacchio? Any former AT&T folks remember when Nacchio pushed this on to the voice network as a differentiator? Whitney Houston sang in the adds to demo the "improvement".
The non-linear treatment of DS0's wreaked havoc with modems and other stuff.
Belzebutt 12/4/2012 | 10:39:42 PM
re: Qwest: Ciao Nacchio? I remember the True Voice ad. Everyone in the NOC stood up in awe as they saw Whitney and the real-time 3D graphs of her voice on the giant screens. I switched to AT&T immediately.
Vesting 12/4/2012 | 10:39:37 PM
re: Qwest: Ciao Nacchio? >Does anyone believe Qwest will go under?

The Government (SEC/PUC's/FCC and perhaps even the Justice Department) cannot allow the RBOC side of Qwest to "go under". I am afraid that they may be forced to spin off the revenue draining side of the former Qwest and allow it to die like everyone else. My further fear is this may bring back the return of regulation. That can't really help anyone.

I will agree that US WEST at many times looked more like US Worst but they were in a constant growth mode. Albeit at a snails pace. How long before the PUC's start screaming about held orders again. Held orders were at a peak when US WEST was slowing growth. Qwest has killed it altogether.
willywilson 12/4/2012 | 10:39:23 PM
re: Qwest: Ciao Nacchio? "Another source at a leading hedge fund, asking to remain unnamed, says the investment community is getting impatient -- and they believe it's time for Qwest to move on to a new CEO. 'People want to get rid of Nacchio,' he says."


There might be good reasons to get rid of Nacchio, but one of them is NOT because "investors" and/or "hedge funds" want him to go. These "investors" are the same ones who drove Q's stock price to $60 a couple years ago. They didn't know anything then, and they sure as hell haven't gotten any smarter.

The telecom industry has just about killed itself by listening too closely to the fad of the moment on Wall Street at the expense of long-term corporate fundamentals. The whole relationship with "investors" needs to change.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Sign In