<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
brooks7 7/26/2016 | 3:10:41 PM
Re: I get it Dennis,

HE HAS!  See Frontier.

It is a slow but sure problem.  There are many regulatory issues involved and the network they would like to keep is intertwined with the stuff they get rid of.  The easy stuff has all been dumped.  The hard stuff to get rid of is in front of them.  

How do you deal with a base station fed by FiOS and there is shared equipment and personnel?  It is not a miracle, but it will be a lot of work to put all the right assets and people in the right buckets at the same time they are trying to run a business.

We are not talking about 3 lines and a couple of boxes.  We are talking about a network with millions of lines.  Go into a CO and figure out who will end up owning what equipment.  I am glad you think you can do it in 20 minutes.  But for the rest of us, it takes years.

You don't like his plan.  Great.  But residential wireline networks are a troubled business.  Take a look at Google and their rapid plan to deploy massive amounts of fiber.  How about the cable guys taking yet another extension to DOCSIS.  Or AT&T with more announcements then customers of fiber.  The reason?  There are so many better places to invest the money.  That is why there isn't competition.  If if was a great business, then networks would spring into existence.  

So - if you are an investor - would you prefer to hear a company is doubling down on residential wireline OR one that has decided to transform the business?

By the way, that is why I found the whole Carl Russo thing HYSTERICAL.  Calix hasn't disrupted anything ever.  They are a very nice little company.  But talking to the CEO of the number 5 player in a dead market about disruption?  Come on (Nokia, Adtran, Huawei, and ZTE are all ahead of Calix).

Mitch Wagner 7/26/2016 | 3:06:16 PM
What next for Marissa Mayer? Common wisdom is that she's a failure. 

But is she? Or did she keep the company going longer than others woudl have, and deliver maximum return for shareholders?
Mitch Wagner 7/26/2016 | 3:05:23 PM
Re: Let's put it to the test What's the overall strategy here? Verizon seems to have two businesses without an overall connection here: Service provider and ad platform. 
Joe Stanganelli 7/26/2016 | 2:50:57 PM
Re: I get it @wan: I think there are numerous fair criticisms one can level at VZ, but their culture not being like that of a "hip" startup that provides free coffee is not, in my mind, one of them.  Dumb, desperate Millennials who overpaid for their college degrees and went into too much debt may fall for the "oh, boy, free snacks!" benefit as making up for low salary, but even modestly more seasoned workforce members understand that work doesn't have to be -- and probably shouldn't be -- like a giant playground.  (Indeed, a number of ex-employees of such "free food and fun times" startups have gone on to bitterly complain about their former employers' poor culture, poor hopes for advancement, poor benefits, and poor salary on such sites as GlassDoor.)

Sure, there is productivity to think about, but there is also practicality.  FB, Google, and the like in Silicon Valley pay TONS of money on benefits to keep their employees on campus and in the office working and collaborating as long as possible... but that environment isn't for everyone, and isn't worth it for everyone.

(Also, I've learned from personal experience that if you're interviewing for a job and you discover that the executives don't have real offices, run away.)
mendyk 7/26/2016 | 2:47:31 PM
Re: I get it So then why doesn't McAdam engineer a spinout and isolate what he and others consider to be dead weight? He's getting paid close to $20 million a year. Are shareholders getting their money's worth from that spend? As far as the cash machine goes, if things were that easy, more companies would be doing it. That's kind of the problem when top management gets lazy -- they start looking for giant piles of money that take little or no effort to secure. I see nothing to suggest that Verizon can execute the plan you suggest.
brooks7 7/26/2016 | 2:41:14 PM
Re: I get it Dennis,

I completely and utterly disagree.  If you have a bad business, then stop doing it.  Don't throw good money after bad.  The challenge is that they can not just abandon the business from a regulatory standpoint.  They have been selling it off chunks at a time.  But you can not assume that it is possible to make the residential wireline business a good business into the future.  

I took Wanlord's point to be that you can't make a telco into Google.  I agree with that.  The best thing you can do is fire all the telco guys.  Problem is that this is not realistic.  So, the next best thing is to stop trying to build the business and to buy it.  When you buy it, run it separately and let your legacy business wither.

Let me use a bit more detail on the commentary from the post I did earlier in the other thread.  I see advertising as a 95% GM business.  If I can buy a cash machine that is there and cobble together good pieces of failed businesses, then I have a scaled business already.  The problem is trying to put telco people in charge of that business.  It never works.

They are treating Verizon as a giant P/E fund and repositioning the firm.  Seems most excellent to me.


mendyk 7/26/2016 | 2:26:22 PM
Re: I get it Yes, and McAdam has made no secret about his disdain for that business. Still, as the CEO of the entire company, it's his job to make that part of the business work as best as it can. And to wanlord's point, VZ isn't acting like an organization that understands what it takes to compete with the Webscale bunch.
brooks7 7/26/2016 | 2:12:39 PM
Re: I get it Dennis,

I would argue that the residential assets are primariy a drain.

mendyk 7/26/2016 | 2:04:57 PM
Re: I get it Good points -- they also reinforce the perception that Verizon's top management struggles with the issue of effectively managing both its legacy businesses and its new-growth opportunities. Also, it's hard to escape the conclusion that VZ's top management sees its workforce strictly as a cost burden, as opposed to a revenue-generating asset.
wanlord 7/26/2016 | 1:35:04 PM
I get it I get why they are doing it. Desperation. They haven't been able to figure out how to create anything internally, or change the telecom culture that exists. The culture clash will be very interesting.  There is a big difference between how things are managed and how employees are treated in VZ vs. these companies. Just go to the VZ HQ and see how quiet the sterile office is and how sad it feels with everyone stuck in their little cubicles not communicating. Blocked from any use of social media or tools to communicate and be open.  They don't even see the value of providing free coffee in work areas, forcing employees to take 20 mins out of their day going to the cafe and standing in line. Huge productivity suck.  They want to be Google and Facebook, but don't want to pony up the perks that bring in the best talent and inspire employees to make them happy. The moment I see the VPs and XOO's sitting out with their teams instead of hiding out in their bunker offices, then I will believe they are serious.
<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>