Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qwest Communications (Q) (formerly QWST) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger Hess who wrote (1680)	7/1/1998 12:19:00 PM
From: Tweaker	Respond to of 6846

I don't think it is really negative news. It is just an update of an earlier story which has already been factored into the price. It the decision get overturned ... well? Phil exchange2000.com

To: Roger Hess who wrote (1680)	7/1/1998 1:01:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6846

Roger, That was an interesting observation, given the nature of the news. >>We're up today on negative news - I don't understand.<< Maybe, and this is only a maybe... some heavy hitters actually like the essence of that news, in that restricting QWST from entering a loss-leading service environment with little or no ROIs, or with fast-diminishing returns as voice competition continues to heat up, is actually a positive sign? I am not saying this tongue in cheek. The break evens and the cross overs are not the same, and the infrastructure investments between an ITSP model and that of a PSTN model are not the same. They scale differently in terms of girth and complexity, and their cycle times to completion are different. The PSTN frame work, if done properly, takes far longer (but historically yields far greater gross revenues when the model finally tops out), while the ITSP model is a lot faster to build out, with diminishing levels of gross revenue per minute of use as the trend line on pricing continues to dive south. Meeting EBITDA goals with the same resources needed in building a full fledged world class fiber network supported by conventional SONET underpinnings, while carrying the heavy overhead of same, is not the cake walk that it might be when you are simply scraping together a fly by night VoIP ITSP operation (the latter of which will actually enjoy higher returns initially and a lot more quickly, when all assets are accounted for and amortized across the board). I'm not saying that the strategy stinks, but I am saying that it may be throwing off mixed signals which are eliciting less than desirable perceptions by would-be takers. It's not unreasonable to speculate that some shareholders are wondering why Q is bothering with this lower tier service which has a questionable profit future (except that it is already showing signs of erosion from pricing pressures), at least for the near term while standards and acceptance levels are still shaking out, at this early stage in the evolution of packetized voice, to begin with. Like IDTC, where the IP traffic component of their overall voice services portfolio is still very questionable, as a function of contribution to the bottom line, check out Q's returns on investment (if you can find such a break out on them, and if the allocations or resources can be defined in any manner that makes real sense) of their low priced IP services against those of the conventional switched services by LCI, and you begin to see what I'm getting at. On this one, I would certainly like to hear from some informed investors or company insiders who know the breakdowns, either reinforcing my above statements of refuting them entirely. Roger? Anyone? FWIW, and Regards, Frank C.