From Danny Stroud <email@example.com>:
Don't harangue me about it. Ask Wall Street, look at the numbers for the ISPs,
read the paper regarding the latest AOL flap. This is not my sole opinion. I
will not engage in a philosophical debate on this issue. Sorry, but the
market is the judge. des
He. UUNET and PSI show profits even after lots of money spent
on expansion. Zillions of small ISPs which "resell" UUNET's and PSI's
services are profitable (or they'd close the shop long time ago, because
they generally have no cash reserves, and no VC funding). Sprint
and MCI do not show profits on Internet side, but their leased line
business is _very_ healthy because Internet sells those lines.
If anything, telcos provide equivalemt of 64Kbps digital service to anyone
for the same $20/mo and are not particularly bankrupt.
One has to be completely insane to call the industry with nearly decade of more
than 100% annual growth "not economically viable". One has to read way too much
creative economists (of statist camp) to believe in anything like that. For once,
those economists missed the entire new industry. Now they pretend it doesn't
exist or offer moronic suggestions on how to "fix" it. How nice, but we've
already seen exactly that scenario with PCs.
PS AOL "flap" is a typical example of blatant incompetence.
Their marketroids never heard of market pilots, or something,
to measure response before doing something really drastic.
If AOL will go under as a result, they won't get a lot of sympathy.
PPS What figures? I've certainly seen a lot of creative accounting,
when, for example, network build-up is counted as operational
expense (Sprint used to do that), whereas all sane people count it
PPPS Wall Street who? I guess not the people who valued UUNET at $2B,
P S May i politely suggest reading some books on the early history of
telephony before writing nonsense? Fortunately, they had fewer
economists and lawyers back then (though, Bell had to defend his
patents against 576 suits).