Last Updated: April 4, 2008: 2:34 PM EDTVerizon's tough call
The No. 2 wireless carrier desperately needs new revenue streams to offset
declines in its core home phone business.
By Scott Moritz, writer
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Verizon Wireless scored a major coup recently when it
agreed to pay nearly $9.4 billion for wireless spectrum to build what could
be the country's largest and fastest cellphone network. In a victory lap of
sorts, Verizon executives on Friday hosted a conference call during which
they predicted the network would blanket the nation in two years and
boasted of the huge revenue opportunity for years to come.
CEO Ivan Seidenburg went so far as to call the company's ambitious plans
for the newly-acquired 700 megahertz radio waves "transformative."
Let's hope so. Verizon's (VZ, Fortune 500) warm and fuzzy forecast of a
gleaming future in wireless masks the cold reality facing the country's No.
2 wireless carrier: It's core business, landline phones, is slowly
disappearing and the amount of debt it's taking on to finance a 4G network,
as the next-generation of cellphone services are called, is rising fast.
Craig Moffett, an analyst with Bernstein Research, noted as much in a
message to investors on Friday. Timed to Verizon's presentation to analysts
on Friday, Moffett released a report in which he reminded investors that
the company's present outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
"Someday, Verizon will be all about wireless data [and] rule the roost in
wireless broadband," wrote Moffett. "Someday... but not today."
Specifically, Moffett noted, Verizon primary customer lines were cancelled
at a rate of 10.6% last year as more customers switched to cable or
wireless phone services. The pace of that decline is accelerating,
according to Moffett, who points out that Verizon's primary residential
phone lines have dropped by 27% since 2002.
Home phone service is still Verizon's biggest business, but it now accounts
for only 29% of sales, according to Moffett. Verizon reported revenues of
$93.5 billion in 2007.
Many customers are fleeing to cable companies like Comcast (CMCSA) and Time
Warner Cable (TWC), which have successfully bundled lower-cost video,
calling and Internet access services into single monthly packages. In
response, Verizon and AT&T (T, Fortune 500) are building expensive video
systems, but they're still losing customers by the thousands.
Wireless growth has long been Verizon's salvation in this downward trend.
The carrier has not only gained mobile phone users from the steady decline
in landline customers, it has also profited from the higher revenue
generated by wireless calls. That's because, unlike a conventional call
where customers pay only for the calls made, wireless carriers bill for
calls made and received.
Even so, wireless services alone won't completely offset the revenue
shortfall from fewer landline customers, which is why Verizon is investing
heavily in mobile data services like Web access, GPS navigation and e-mail.
What's more, 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.
The cost of building its 4G wireless broadband network will be staggering,
according to some analysts. Verizon isn't saying how much it plans to spend
building the network, but has estimated that its total capital investments
will be less than the $17.5 billion spent in 2007. That does not include
the $9.36 billion it now owes on the wireless spectrum licenses.
To be sure, Verizon doesn't have much trouble attracting fresh capital
these days. This week the company raised $4 billion from debt sales to help
pay for the wireless spectrum. This pushes Verizon's total debt to about
$35.1 billion. As investors have grown leery during the broader credit
crisis on Wall Street, Verizon may find it harder, and more expensive, to
secure additional funding in the future.
The big telco is in a tight spot. Wireless expansion is necessary to offset
its core declines, but the problem is that investors won't like the costs
or the deeper debts required to make it happen.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
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.
Verizon is one of the companies which has been successful in its wireless
business, and it is investing heavily in that business (at the cost of
short-term profits), in order to stay successful.
The jury is out on the "new AT&T" (nee' Cingular) and AT&T Mobility. The
old AT&T got into wireless much the same way, by buying McCaw Cellular One
and rebranding it as "AT&T Wireless". Hopefully AT&T management has
studied that debacle, and taken effective measures to avoid repeating
those mistakes.
It is unclear what this analyst would like to see Verizon's management do.
Verizon has shed itself of legacy businesses such as IDEARC and Fairpoint,
and will probably continue to do so. But failing to invest aggressively
in its wireless network, although it may please short-term investers,
would be long-term suicide.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
tim@nowhere.com (Tim) wrote in news:20080405002827.A444B4E4B6
@outpost.zedz.net:
> 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
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
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.
>
> Verizon is one of the companies which has been successful in its
> wireless business, and it is investing heavily in that business (at
> the cost of short-term profits), in order to stay successful.
>
> The jury is out on the "new AT&T" (nee' Cingular) and AT&T Mobility.
> The old AT&T got into wireless much the same way, by buying McCaw
> Cellular One and rebranding it as "AT&T Wireless". Hopefully AT&T
> management has studied that debacle, and taken effective measures to
> avoid repeating those mistakes.
>
> It is unclear what this analyst would like to see Verizon's
> management do. Verizon has shed itself of legacy businesses such as
> IDEARC and Fairpoint, and will probably continue to do so. But
> failing to invest aggressively in its wireless network, although it
> may please short-term investers, would be long-term suicide.
>
> -- Mark --
I met your mom and step dad(?) about 15 years ago in the Skamania Lodge
dining room. We were talking and she mentioned your name. I started
to chuckle and she asked if I knew you. I did not want to tell her
that you were a known troll from seattle.general. I was polite in
referencing you. She might've mentioned the conversation to you. I'm
sure that you know that your mom visited the Skamania Lodge around
1993-1994, so I am not making this up.
I hope that your mom is well. She sincerely seemed like a great lady.
If she is still around, ask her about the conversation. Tell your mom
that I said 'hi'.
I have not seen your name pop up on my screen in a while and I just
remembered meeting your mom.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
At 05 Apr 2008 01:45:50 +0000 Larry 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.
Actually, in this case, it's just the opposite- Verizon, the largest CDMA
carrier, is planning to adopt the same 4G system most GSM carriers plan to
adopt- we're actually coming full circle- interoperability beteen most, if
not all, carriers. European GSM 4G phones will be able to roam on Verizon,
and vice-versa.
> The Sellphone industry hasn't learned its lesson, yet......
>
> But it's about to................................................ .Wimax
*Sigh*... It's going to be like watching a six-year-old discover there's
no Santa Claus when you see WiMax deployed...
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
Larry wrote:
> tim@nowhere.com (Tim) wrote in news:20080405002827.A444B4E4B6
> @outpost.zedz.net:
>
>> 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. This is only the latest in
a series of failures because it works about 5% as well as it was promoted.:
"Australia’s WiMAX pioneer, Buzz Broadband, closed its network, with the
operator’s CEO publicly calling the technology a “disaster” that “failed
miserably.”..."
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:XpCdndqGns5U9WranZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
> Buzz Broadband
Here has been WiMax's problem. How much capital do you think "Buzz
Broadband" has? Can we count it on one hand?
The big boys have brought bags of cash to WiMax, now, and YOU haven't been
keeping up!
Nokia is in production of WiMax internet tablets. I doubt they intend
Wimax to die so this production will be wasted. Now owning over 40% of the
sellphone market of the world, Nokia can simply buy anything it wants from
petty cash.....including a WiMax network across the planet to put it on.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
I dunno. Looking at VZ as a stock, I like what I see. They even have a
nice dividend.
My view of the economy is such, that I expect most stocks to be cheaper 6
months from now. Thus, I won't be buying VZ Monday. However, if the stock
market tanks and gets VZ down closer to 20, I may pick some up.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
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. 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.
The failure of the Australian WiMax project has now moved to the
finger pointing stage, so we really don't have any tangible facts why
it allegedly failed.
Re: 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.”..."
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
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.
> 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.
> The failure of the Australian WiMax project
And that is another lie. There is no such animal that has failed.
> 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.
> so we really don't have any tangible facts why it allegedly failed.
Another lie. We do know that that clown that claims it doesnt work
'runs' a tiny little pimple on the bum of broadband in one particular
town and that Internode is a MUCH bigger national operation and
that Internode says that that clown hasnt got a fucking clue about
how to implement a viable WiMax operation.
AND WiMax is an enhancement of wifi, which hordes use every single day too.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
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.
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.
>> 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.
> 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.
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 fucking 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 fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
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.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
Rod Speed wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking 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?
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
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.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
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 fucking 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!!!
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
"DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote...
>
>> 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?
rodless is just the local troll who resorts to profanity and insults every time
he's proven wrong. He's occasionally worth something for entertainment value,
but that's all.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
John Weiss <jrweiss@comcast.net> wrote
John Weiss <jrweiss98155@comcast.net> wrote
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>>> 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?
> rodless is just the local troll who resorts to profanity and insults every time he's proven wrong. He's occasionally
> worth something for entertainment value, but that's all.
Weiss is a terminal fuckwit thats so stupid that it cant even manage
to work out that no one proved me wrong in that subthread.
Not ever even entertainment value either, too pathetic for that.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
DTC 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 fucking 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?
Now _that's_ funny.
I don't think that many people here remember Jim Navas. However Jim
Navas's main area of misinformation was in the PC arena, specifically
motherboards, see "http://tinyurl.com/4s7ewb" for "The Jim Navas
Collection." John's main areas of misinformation are in cellular
communications, wireless data, and digital cameras. Rod Speed's lack of
knowledge is much more diverse, as he posts misinformation on a very
wide variety of subjects.
Rod Speed and the Navas brothers are why g-d invented Usenet filters!
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
In a way, isn't it the other way around? Isn't the LTE CDMA based?
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:4QOJj.2272$qm1.1955@fe099.usenetserver.com...
>
> Actually, in this case, it's just the opposite- Verizon, the largest CDMA
> carrier, is planning to adopt the same 4G system most GSM carriers plan to
> adopt- we're actually coming full circle- interoperability beteen most, if
> not all, carriers. European GSM 4G phones will be able to roam on
> Verizon,
> and vice-versa.
>
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
On 2008-04-07, Alan Marryat <letsgohokies@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
> news:4QOJj.2272$qm1.1955@fe099.usenetserver.com...
>>
>> Actually, in this case, it's just the opposite- Verizon, the largest CDMA
>> carrier, is planning to adopt the same 4G system most GSM carriers plan to
>> adopt- we're actually coming full circle- interoperability beteen most, if
>> not all, carriers. European GSM 4G phones will be able to roam on
>> Verizon,
>> and vice-versa.
>>
> In a way, isn't it the other way around? Isn't the LTE CDMA based?
No, it is OFDM on the downlink and something else on the uplink. It
originally had a CDMA fallback, but that was removed to minimize Qualcomm
involvement in the patent pool (Qualcomm is widely blamed for the
fact that patent license fees amount to 35% of the cost of 3G UMTS
parts).
I'm not even sure that the "CDMA" EV-DO downlink is CDMA. I think it
is shared by time division, not by code division.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
Alan Marryat wrote:
> In a way, isn't it the other way around? Isn't the LTE CDMA based?
Different enough to avoid the Qualcomm patents apparently. We'll see.
Now if only the GSM carriers and CDMA carriers had adopted the same
version of CDMA for 3G! Actually the carriers in Europe wanted to use
EVDO, but their governments wouldn't let them. There was a good article
about this in The Economist a few years ago.
Re: Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal."
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:58:51 -0700, "John Weiss"
<jrweiss98155NOSPAM@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:
>"DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote...
>>
>>> 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?
>
>rodless is just the local troll who resorts to profanity and insults every time
>he's proven wrong. He's occasionally worth something for entertainment value,
>but that's all.
Analyst: Verizon's outlook is "nothing short of dismal." 
Linear Mode
