Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Larry wrote
>> tim@nowhere.com (Tim) wrote

>>> Verizon is hoping that a joint venture with Vodafone (VOD)
>>> will give it the global scale necessary to negotiate lower prices on infrastructure and phones once it switches to a
>>> new wireless technology known as long term evolution, or LTE.

>> Oh, boy! Let's screw up another generation of data delivery with
>> about 10 new, and of course completely incompatible, "systems"
>> designed to prevent churning so we can screw 'em with charges.

>> The Sellphone industry hasn't learned its lesson, yet......

>> But it's about to................................................ .Wimax

> You really haven't been keeping up on things.

You in spades.

> This is only the latest in a series of failures because it works about 5% as well as it was promoted.:

You line in spades.

> "Australia’s WiMAX pioneer, Buzz Broadband,

Thats a lie.

> closed its network, with the operator’s CEO publicly calling the technology a “disaster” that “failed miserably.”..."

> http://www.electronista.com/articles....wimax.closed/

And Internode said that theirs works fine, using the same supplier,
so that clown clearly couldnt implement a pissup in a brewery.

Rod Speed wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>> True...Just as so many investors brought bags of cash to internet startups ten years ago.
>
> That isnt what happened.

What didn't happen? Investor didn't bring bags of money to startups?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

At the height of the boom, it was possible for a promising dot-com to
make an initial public offering (IPO) of its stock and raise a
substantial amount of money even though it had never made a profit

>> Therefore using the amount of cash infused into WiMax as a metric of it potential of success is flawed. Its not a
>> metric of its success yet as it hasn't been deployed in enough areas to evaluate.
>
> That last is a pig ignorant lie.

How so?

>> The failure of the Australian WiMax project
>
> And that is another lie. There is no such animal that has failed.

Garth Freeman does not share your opinion.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/mobile/08.../1512220.shtml

>> has now moved to the finger pointing stage,
>
> Yep, with a MUCH bigger broadband operation saying that
> their WiMax using hardware from the same supplier works fine.

Read what I said, I didn't say it was a failure for him just because it
was WiMax. I said it could be anyone's fault at this point. As in
poor vendor/carrier communication and setting expectations.

>> so we really don't have any tangible facts why it allegedly failed.
>
> Another lie.

See above.

> AND WiMax is an enhancement of wifi, which hordes use every single day too.

WiMax has absolutely no comparison to WiFi, other than they both use
radio waves.

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>>> Larry wrote

>>>> The big boys have brought bags of cash to WiMax, now, and YOU haven't been keeping up!

>>> True...Just as so many investors brought bags of cash to internet startups ten years ago.

>> That isnt what happened.

> What didn't happen?

What preceeded that bit of mine, stupid.

> Investor didn't bring bags of money to startups?

You quite sure that you aint one of those rocket scientist stupids ?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
>

> At the height of the boom, it was possible for a promising dot-com to make an initial public offering (IPO) of its
> stock and raise a
> substantial amount of money even though it had never made a profit
>

Pity that wasnt internet startups in the technology sense being discussed.

>>> Therefore using the amount of cash infused into WiMax as a metric of it potential of success is flawed. Its not a
>>> metric of its
>>> success yet as it hasn't been deployed in enough areas to evaluate.

>> That last is a pig ignorant lie.

> How so?

Because it has been deployed in enough areas to evaluate.

>>> The failure of the Australian WiMax project

>> And that is another lie. There is no such animal that has failed.

> Garth Freeman does not share your opinion.
> http://mobile.slashdot.org/mobile/08.../1512220.shtml

Who cares ? That pimple on the bum of Australian broadband aint anything
even remotely resembling anything like 'the Australian WiMax project'

>>> has now moved to the finger pointing stage,

>> Yep, with a MUCH bigger broadband operation saying that
>> their WiMax using hardware from the same supplier works fine.

> Read what I said,

No point, it remains mindless pig ignorant shit no matter how often its reread.

> I didn't say it was a failure for him just because it was WiMax.

I didnt say you did.

> I said it could be anyone's fault at this point.

And that is just plain wrong when, like I said, a MUCH bigger broadband operation
says that their WiMax using hardware from the same supplier works fine.

All the evidence points to the fact that that fool Freeman doesnt have a ****ing clue.

> As in poor vendor/carrier communication and setting expectations.

How odd that Internode has enough of a clue to be able to implement it fine.

From the same supplier too.

>>> so we really don't have any tangible facts why it allegedly failed.

>> Another lie.

> See above.

Completely useless, as always.

>> AND WiMax is an enhancement of wifi, which hordes use every single day too.

> WiMax has absolutely no comparison to WiFi, other than they both use radio waves.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Rod Speed wrote:
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Thanks for your responses. The professionals here will have a good
laugh at them.

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

> Thanks for your responses. The professionals here will have a good laugh at them.

Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

You're no 'professional', just a pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Mark Crispin wrote:
> So, this article says that Verizon Wireless, the cell phone company, is
> so incredibly successful that it is propping up Verizon's wired landline
> business; and that Verizon's management is betting the company's future
> on Verizon Wireless rather than the wired landline business.
>
> And this is supposed to news to anyone? Every wired landline business
> in the world is sinking. Most wired landline companies saw the writing
> on the wall two decades ago and got into the wireless business, some
> quite a bit more successful that others.

What's still the unknown is how well Verizon's FIOS and AT&T's "fiber to
the curb" will compete against cable and satellite TV. It's interesting
that AT&T sold off their cable TV business to Comcast, apparently
believing that they didn't need it to compete in that business. So
there's still a big wired component to the business models of AT&T and
Verizon, though perhaps not for landline phone service.

If you ask anyone who they hate more, the cable company or the phone
company, the cable company is usually the most despised. However I must
say that Comcast has been a much less obnoxious cable company, in terms
of marketing, than AT&T. Part of AT&T's marketing for cable was to send
out letters threatening non-subscribers, claiming that anyone not
subscribing was somehow stealing cable service. Then AT&T started
offering phone service over cable, and was sending salespeople door to
door trying to confuse residents into believing that they were "the
phone company" and the conversion from copper pair to cable phone
service was something that was required.

Rod Speed wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
>
>> Thanks for your responses. The professionals here will have a good laugh at them.
>
> Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> You're no 'professional', just a pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Are you by any chance JIM Navas? John's more profane brother?

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all,
>>>> ever.

>>> Thanks for your responses. The professionals here will have a good laugh at them.

>> Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

>> You're no 'professional', just a pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> Are you by any chance JIM Navas? John's more profane brother?

Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, SMS posted:
> If you ask anyone who they hate more, the cable company or the phone company,
> the cable company is usually the most despised. However I must say that
> Comcast has been a much less obnoxious cable company, in terms of marketing,
> than AT&T. Part of AT&T's marketing for cable was to send out letters
> threatening non-subscribers, claiming that anyone not subscribing was somehow
> stealing cable service.

I got one of those "stealing cable service" letters from Comcast; or, more
accurately, a door-hanger on my front door. It was shortly after they
took over the local cable system from AT&T, and over a year after I fired
AT&T.

The droid who left the door-hanger obviously did not see the DirecTV multi
satellite dish on the roof, nor that their cable (cheap RG-59 crap) was
cut at the point where it came out of the ground and no longer soiled the
outside of my house with its presence.

Ever since then, I get a letter, flyer, or other advertisement from
Comcast every 2-3 days begging me to be their customer again. They also
want to be my ISP.

When pigs fly, maybe.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:19:10 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all,
>>>>> ever.
>
>>>> Thanks for your responses. The professionals here will have a good laugh at them.
>
>>> Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>> You're no 'professional', just a pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>
>> Are you by any chance JIM Navas? John's more profane brother?
>
>Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

This Rod Speed just has to be a troll!!! Noone can be THAT stupid!!!

I think she has PMS now... just ignore her...