I'll have to take your word for it, when it comes to the present valuations, i.e., per subscriber worth. That wasn't where I was going with my questions, however, but your points do serve for some good discussion, nonetheless.
Your opinion, I'm sure, is shared by almost everyone, that the metrics for such valuations are fairly constant, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. I don't subscribe to that, however, especially as the utility of the Internet increases, where it is becoming more common for folks to begin deferring to its use for increasing numbers of applications.
Just over the horizon is another kind of playing field, I think. It's one, in fact, that is being inspired by RCNC's majority investor, LVLT. They are espousing a different kind of voice and data platform, one in which they will find some intransigence by RCNC if RCNC is not nimble enough to adjust to it. I'm talking about Internet Telephony, and converged integrated services on all levels through the use of IP.
My previous question to you had all to do with this. If RCNC is just biding time with a resale platform, while amassing a subscriber base, then they are not dumping large amounts of capital into something that will be obsolete by their own parent's (LVLT's) making. On the other hand, well... the other alternative speaks for itself.
From another perspective, with local number portability (LNP) making it easier each day for subscribers to swap out local telephony providers, while retaining their personal directory numbers, even bundling of services will not have the stickiness needed to retain subs, if another provider has more to offer. Here's where it makes more than just a little difference if the bundled services are all facilities based, or not.
Take both of these factors together, the evolving modality of voice, and the LNP issue, and I think that you see where I'm coming from. In some respects it does matter if the service platforms are owned outright by the provider, or if they are using someone else's on a resale basis. |