google is a good company that is overbought. i dont want to pay 31X earnings because i dont think it has the growth potential to support the current high price of the stock.
T needs to break $36.19, or thus will close into the red. I'm sure if anybody has a profit they'll be taking it. Too much uncertainty in Russia Ukraine and Israel. I'm looking for a lower entry. I was hate so much yesterday on my views. SoI won't say if I'm bullish or bearish. I just want a cheaper price for long term
I agree jwaltz. Infrastructure which will have to deploy G.fast to keep new full fiber entrants from stealing its markets. GOOG Fiber can't compete with a 20% cost of 1 gbps builds. Copper incumbents will have to race to deploy to keep the fiber wolf out. The Kansas City market is the example that people want it and will pay for 1 gbps service. Telecoms have been citing lack of demand but GOOG proved them wrong.
The AVERAGE life expectancy is below 76 for men and 81 for women....so over half will be dead before they hit they 80 mark. The intial wave of boomers will be a little over 10 years but the medical costs associated with this wave will be crippling. Let alone the underfunded social security. Classic SS was designed for the destitute but the boomers voted to turn it into a pension program for all without properly funding with adequate withholding. It is my understanding the formula was tampered with some 30 years ago by some not so genius 'scholar'. This all goes without the underfunded corporate pensions the boomers promised themselves....now they cut pension programs for the younger generations but not their own. Says a lot. Reagan was the over spenders idol for the boomer generation.
blah blah blah. if fiber was really bettter then why wouldnt ATT simply go to that medium as well? does google have some kind of patent on the stuff? no...i didnt think they did.
If T doesn't build 1 gbps internet service going forward then someone else will. DTV is a move in the wrong direction. Instead of embracing what the customer wants you are buying a satellite asset to avoid bandwidth consumption...which is what Stephenson eluded to in an interview. If GOOG can install full fiber and TV bundle economically for $120/mo then who isn't going to change to that service when their TV bundle is that much?
Woodrocks, check out "G.fast" technology. Tried posting about it on that Fool article but posting link won't work for me. Google may not get much full fiber competition because full fiber networks are going to be cost disadvantaged with the launch of G.fast dropping install costs of a 1 gbps customer by 80%. Yes, 80% with a couple articles commented 90%. Cost advantage goes to last leg copper line incumbents. There is a reason FiOS build was halted by Verizon back in 2010. Check when Huawei began work on G.fast for a quick hint. ;-) NOW we have G.fast standardization which was completed in April 2014. OEMs developing models with commercial launch expected for Europe in 2015 instead of 2016 on the back of standardization being completed earlier than projected. Essentially AT&T is wasting $68B on satellite assets which are fading assets.
Feel free to post this comment to the Fool article.
early 70s start falling apart --80, doesn't matter not much left.
That's why they bought DTV so, they can get service out to people that don't have access to U-verse !
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Absolutely not ! Google fiber will never match the infrastructure of AT&T !
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I sure hate to rain on your 10 yrs. from now parade, but when we baby boomers have checked out in 10 yrs, as you suggest will happen, you and your next generation will see Obamacare more than plug the financial gap we will create by croaking.
Oh, by the way, let's not forget the almost $18T in debt you will be shouldering on your back. Have fun pal.
How much business could T concievably lose because of Google Fiber? Would it be enough to collapse the stock price in the future? Serious question.
Why doesn't AT&T get U-verse out to everyone on at least a 12 or greater MPS bandwidth? I just don't get it: How can U-verse be considered so "universal" - you know, "the latest thing, the greatest thing" when it doesn't even marketed anywhere it started now almost 10 years ago. I live in a capital city and all of the surrounding towns and villages here in New Jersey have it, but not Trenton. The same sort of situation exists in a lot of southern states, too, except Tennessee (Nashville). Something is tragically wrong with AT&T's advertising and promotions for U-verse. Another thing I object to is the cost of subscriptions. If they would only get off their duffs and get it out to more people, then the economies of scale for per household subscription would be vastly reduced while the technological and marketable developments it needs could be realized by the "universal U-verse" system as opposed to its falling prey to competitor cable viewing provided by the likes of Comcast, also a strong contender in both the Sunbelt South and middle Atlantic States. Please then AT&T get to work and make U-verse something truly "universal"!!
LOL. Keep listening to your liberal professors :)
10 years or so???? are you serious, I will be here 30 years from now. Guess you don't know what years baby boomers were born.
PIGS get slaughtered huh - well that may be you if you plan to "LEAN" to swim .. try 2nd grade spelling first