RE: peering charges?

Well, that's not exactly true, UUNet nor PSI show "profits", they show
substantial Revenue. Revenue will cause Wall Street to favor your stock
even if you don't show real profits. The only company in the Internet
business that shows real profit is Cisco, and they are laughing all the way
to the bank. Of course vendors always have higher profit margin than
service companies.

Here is a financial statement for PSI:
Their revenue is up tremendously but their bucket has a big hole in the
bottom as does most other providers. Capital expenditure in this business
is just so high.

PSINet Inc.

Corporate Performance 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991
Revenues ($Mil) 38.7 15.2 8.7 6.4 4.7
Net Profit ($Mil) -53.2 -5.3 -1.9 0.4 0.2
EPS -1.78 -0.26 n/m n/m n/m
Net Profit Margin (%) -137.3 -35.1 -22.1 6.7 5.0

UUNet info wasn't available because of the Merger.. their ticker doesn't
show up anymore. I know they did not show profits because just before
their merger I looked at all of the big players stock to see if there was
anymone actually making money, and none has positive profits or margins.

From Danny Stroud <>:

Don't harangue me about it. Ask Wall Street, look at the numbers for the


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


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,