How Will WorldCom/UUNet Impact The Internet? 259
somewinner writes "CNN.com has an article discussing WordCom's impending failure and its possible impact on the internet. Given that WorldCom (via UUNet) handles 50% of US internet traffic, and a large percentage of traffic worldwide, some concern is certainly justifiable. However, the author of the article seems to think that nothing serious is going to happen."
"Screw-You Net" (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:"Screw-You Net" (Score:3, Insightful)
Has anyone sat down and asked themselves, seriously, why all these well established telco and internet providers are failing?
One answer might be that they are terribly mis-managed. Probably attributable to years of eating off the fatted calf that was acadameia.
I think, though, that in a push to be competitive, these large corporations/businesses have priced themselves out of business. Even though I just heard a lot of nods from the contingent that seems to think asking people to pay for the bandwidth they use is excessive, I am not on their side. I don't believe the largest company in the US, and the largest carrier in Europe failed because they wanted too much money. They both still have upwards of 50% of their respective markets.
So you can't say that competition is getting them, since they have 50% of the eyes, and are still going under. So it is not a non-competitive issue.
I think we, the users, are not paying for what we use. The lowest level carriers seem to be knocking these people out of business. The telcos, or whoever.
Screw-you-net indeed, but they obviously didn't screw you good enough, so now you will have to deal with other companies that will either go under also, or start charging you what they are charged.
Re:"Screw-You Net" (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's not as it ISPs have a choice about paying for bandwidth. They get a connection to a teir1 carrier, or they suck; two choices. It's entirely different than me at home wanting to pay less for a DSL line.
Me sitting at home wanting to pay less for a DSL line is a good thing. Consumers exert downward pressure on prices; they want to pay less. That's how markets work. Producers want more, of course, so they try to raise prices. That's also how free markets work. If screwyounet was not charging enough to cover its costs, then they were boneheads. This is not my fault for wanting to pay less for broadband at home, and it's not my ISP's fault for wanting to pay less for its T3 connections. It's screwyounet's fault for being morons and giving away their product.
The more I think about it, the more I think you're totally wrong. There was a huge buildout of network capacity in the 90s. Many of the businesses who were buying it are now defunct. So there's vast overcapacity, and it's even cheaper, now, because the telecoms market has crashed.
I wonder how screwyounet is doing, separate from WorldCom? WorldCom seemed (to me) to be a criminal organization from the get-go -- jus an aggregator rather than a producer. Like the 90's T. Bonne Pickens kind of corporation. Screwyounet may have just been dragged down with WorldCom's "accounting irregularities" (i.e. lying, fraud, etc.), which has exactly nothing to do with me wanting to pay less for a DSL line, or even what scrweyounet charges for bandwidth.
since they have 50% of the eyes, and are still going under. So it is not a non-competitive issue.
Dotcoms all went for market share over profits. So what's your point?
I think we, the users, are not paying for what we use. The lowest level carriers seem to be knocking these people out of business. The telcos, or whoever.
This is retarded. We're paying what they charge for it, if we feel it's worth it. We are under no obligation to pay more for something just to save their butts. They can try charging more, if that's the problem. If they charge more than the public thinks their product is worth, they sell less of it. There's a sweet spot there somewhere that some guy named Laffer had something to say about.
Screw-you-net indeed, but they obviously didn't screw you good enough
No, they're obviously morons for not civerign their costs, if that's the problem they had.
so now you will have to deal with other companies that will [...] start charging you what they are charged.
A company like that would NOT be run by morons.
When push comes to shove (Score:2)
Re:When push comes to shove (Score:2)
Re:When push comes to shove (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:When push comes to shove (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:When push comes to shove (Score:2)
If WorldCom were to close, other large providers (AT most likely) would buy up their existing fiber and hardware... They wouldn't have the money problems because many people would suddenly need service and might have to pay a little more up front to get it.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Re:When push comes to shove (Score:2)
Heck, it's already happening.
Re:When push comes to shove (Score:2)
These things would be run from overseas, and that would make tapping and logging for the purpose of MPAA's war on Terr^H^H^H^Hfile sharing.
Wouldn't it?
Re:When push comes to shove (Score:2)
No Government Bailout In Sight (Score:5, Interesting)
So the government bailed them out.
Then, some years later, there was a little problem at a generating plant owned by General Public Utilities (GPU). You might not have heard of GPU but you've heard of the plant: Three Mile Island. GPU stock took a hit, as you might imagine. In fact it looked like it might go broke. The problem was that it was a utility, which means it was a monopoly. If it went broke the lights went out over a fair stretch of countryside. That couldn't happen.
So the government bailed them out.
Now, my father saw both of those coming. He bought Lockheed stock at fire-sale prices because he knew that they couldn't be allowed to go broke. He cried because he couldn't afford more. He made out like a bandit.
When GPU started to go under, he bought all the GPU stock he could. And this time, he could afford more. He made out like a bandit. So well, in fact, that he assured himself a comfortable retirement. He's quite conservative, and told me ruefully, "I always preached the values of thrift and economy. Now I'm comfortable in my old age, but it isn't due to any of that. Hmph."
Then the Seattle public utility, through a boring series of blunders, started to go broke. They couldn't be allowed to go broke, for the same reasons that GPU couldn't and Lockheed couldn't.
So the government...said "Hey! Wait just a darn minute here!" And didn't bail them out.
And they went broke. And the lights stayed on.
Ditto when California started having rolling blackouts. Big raspberries from the Fed, because the Shrub knows California wouldn't vote for him if he was rolling out the red carpet in front of Jesus Christ for the Second Coming. Much stick-waving, stunningly bad contracting, and shouting, but the lights came back on and stayed that way.
The days of government bailouts are over.
Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't wait till my local telco goes down. Good ole Qwest. A lot of morons are pointing to all the corporate collapses saying it's the fault of the "Clinton Era" for de-regulation. Wrong. People are fucking greedy. But then again, telling big business they can do whatever they want is like telling a 15 year old boy he can watch whatever he wants on late night cable. Skinamax anyone?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
You were most likely modded down as a troll because most people older than ten realise that mocking the name of someone you disagree with, instead of presenting real arguments, is childish and immature, and nobody wants to hear the political opinions of a ten-year-old.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Fine, sez I. I'd rather stick rusted, lye-soaked icepicks through my eyeballs than get a premium service from these vultures. But dialup was slow, and one day a rep from Brooks Fiber came to my workplace wanting to talk about becoming our frame relay and Internet vendor. After we went through the basic Q and realized that they couldn't quite offer anything to beat our in-place solutions, I asked him if they offered a BRI product to my exchange. He called an engineer, and within a minute told me they did. I asked him about the rate. "$70 a month flat, no cap."
Without skipping a beat I asked him if he could bring a contract over later that day. He did, I signed, and four weeks later I had ISDN at my house. I paid zero dollars for engineering, buildout and installation, in spite of the fact that all this took place on Qwest copper and necessitated a repeater because the circuit was WAY over 18,000 feet. And four years later the only downtime I've ever had was due to that antiquated copper contracting in a cold snap...but because I was dealing with a CLEC I was able to get it fixed over Thanksgiving weekend.
Oh yeah, the irony part. Brooks got bought by MCI, which was subsequently gobbled by Worldcom. I don't like to think about what could happen now. It's like being a tiny mammal staring up at two dinosaurs who've been locked in mortal battle, and noticing that they're both dying of blood loss.
Different consequences (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that when a 15 year old watches soft core porn on cable, it doesn't cost tens of thousands of people their jobs or their retirement investments.
Re:Different consequences (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
I would say, "right." When the government turns its back on its duty to ensure a fair and free market (as opposed to ensuring anarchy), then people get to act on their greed in destructive ways. Just read the business section of any newspaper, or as Doonesbury calls it, "the crime pages."
I remember a two-panel political cartoon from a year or so ago, around the "transition-team" time. The left panel had Clinton sizing up a horse labeled "the economy," and writing "thouroughbred" on an inventory sheet. The right panel had Bush looking at the same horse, but writing "broken down nag" on his inventory sheet.
I think Bush (in the cartoon) was right. Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Xerox, Vivendi, dot dot dot
It's almost like Clinton was a Republican (free trade, gutted government regulations, etc.) and Bush is a Democrat (protectionism, tariffs, deficit/pork spending, etc.). Of course, it's more confused than that, and both politicans and parties are actually very corrupt.
Sheesh. No wonder keep voting for exactly neither of the two major parties... I'm waiting for a Free Trade with and Iron Fist kind of candidate, who will promote both free trade AND corporate accountability, regulation, oversight, etc. I don't want socialism, and I don't want corporate feudalism. I want capitalism -- you know, free trade, free markets, and strong government regulation and oversight to keep the market a level playing field, and keep fraud out of the picture.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Worldcom's failure MIGHT be a good thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
If enough key (read: rich) players and businesses are seriously inconvenienced (read: lose a lot of revenue) because a key point of potential failure actually failed, then certain monopolies that have predatory practices might be trusted a lot less by default, with people seeking out alternatives "just in case".
Re:Worldcom's failure MIGHT be a good thing. (Score:2)
Uncle Sam to the rescue... (Score:1)
The author is right (Score:5, Informative)
UUNet (Worldcom) has God knows how many routers, lines, Satellite equipment, and other things not in my vocabulary. Not only will they not "vanish," they will never be clicked off even temporarily as a result of this legal situation.
So relax.
Re:The author is right (Score:1)
Re:The author is right (Score:2, Insightful)
Just have a look at what is happening right now with KpnQwest in Europe. The banks tried to queeze money out of interested companies that wanted to buy it, until nobody was left..........
If they don't screw that up as well, they might be able to at least keep some national parts running in Germany, Switzerland and I think, Sweden by selling them of. But the rest ?
excess capacity will save us (Score:3, Interesting)
There is currently so much excess high-speed telecom and datacom excess capacity that you could toss 50% of it and still have enough, though there may be localized disruptions. This is because of huge overbuilding during the dot-com boom.
Re:excess capacity will save us (Score:2)
Re:excess capacity will save us (Score:2, Informative)
much greater problem is losing their peering
entry points into other networks. If from Lubbock, instead of connecting to an Austin, TX site through Dallas, you had to connect on a
pipe through LA, do you think that might be
noticeable? I think it could...
Losing a big chunk of the network is a big deal -
just ask KPN/QWEST in Europe. I came into work
this morning to find the peering points into
AT in New York slammed as the transatlantic routes converged.
A nice resilience test (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A nice resilience test (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A nice resilience test (Score:2)
Re:A nice resilience test (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it was "corporatism" that brought on this failure, not "capitalism". We've been moving away from capitalism here in America since the 1978 Supreme Court decision that defined corporate political donations as "free speech". Our biggest corporations essentially bought the 1980 elections after that decision.
That's when these corporations began a major paradigm shift away from "maximizing profits" and towards "controlling markets". Capitalism requires free markets, and doesn't function in controlled markets.
Re:A nice resilience test (Score:3)
Oh No! (Score:1)
First KPNQwest/Ebone, now Worldcom/UUnet. (Score:1)
Or can we really expect 50% reduced bandwidth worldwide?
Ownership of assets != Operation of assets (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ownership of assets != Operation of assets (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about the spammers? (Score:2)
Then they just spam from overseas. If it were only that easy to stop spammers I would have bankrupted Worldcom myself years ago...
Re:What about the spammers? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What about the spammers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about the spammers? (Score:2)
So according to steps 1 and 5, you would fine the spammer literally thousands of dollars and then release his name to his "victims?" That seems just a little harsh. I mean, maybe give each victim a small part of the fine gained, or put the fine towards credits on the victim's account for more bandwidth, but you don't want to set up an environment where customers have an incentive to attack each other physically. You could, however, release that information to other ISPs, so they would know who to allow and not to allow to use their service, or at least to monitor their actions if they do sign up.
You're right that that's a good start, but that's all it is. Spammers will still find some way to get around those and other methods of thwarting them. Also, unless the ISP to do this was very reputable and very large, and convinced the other big boys in the ISP business to cooperate, this plan could hardly be implemented. Imagine if AOL & MSN & all the others (I haven't been in the market for a really long time) got together and put a system like this into effect: then, and possibly only then, it would work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about the spammers? (Score:2)
Wouldn't you only be able to sue a spammer who is based in the same state as you are? The internet is a national/international entity, and I don't really see why Virginia state law should apply to the whole thing. In Virginia it might be illegal to drive over 75 MPH, but if you heard about someone doing 80 in Canada you wouldn't advocate arresting him, would you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
FCC will watch any selloff of assets closely. (Score:1)
Don't even know what to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I'm confused... is the State Department a company, or a country?
Did he say that deliberately, as a statement/joke? Somehow, I don't think so.
Is proof-reading a lost art, which AP archeologists speculate about in their broken english?
Is he an idiot business journalist who doesn't even know the word "agency"? The men in suits who work for the guv'mint aren't businessmen, they're "public servants." Can you say public servant?
I know this doesn't seem the most significant thing to get up in arms about, but it's part of a whole phenomenon where the journalists getting broad distribution are good old fashioned stupid.
Re:Don't even know what to say (Score:1)
I know I'm tired of the new-wave stupid.
What?
Re:Don't even know what to say (Score:2)
Most reporters are basically semi-literate, at best. Sub-editors usually have an excellent command of the language, and are the guys and gals who turn Reporterlish into English; sadly, most news companies view reporters, subs, and photographers as a waste of money, preferring to syndicate content from the wire services, have a bare minimum of staff to lay the paper out and write a few stories, and bulk up the advertising departments.
So yes, proofing is a lost art; researching and writing stories is becoming one; the boom is in advertising copy.
Re:Don't even know what to say (Score:2)
There are occasionally cadetships for would-be reporters; these pay, unlike internship, although not that much.
To throw some cost of living numbers around that, I used to rent a 3 bedroom, 150 sq m house (on a 500 sq m section) in walking distance of the centre of town (I live in the capital) for $360/week, and spend about $100/week on groceries for two people.
in an emergency (Score:1)
Expect a considerable decrease in spam! (Score:2)
'nuff said.
Pulling off generalities (Score:3, Insightful)
And naturally, ANY drop in service will be hyped up and broadcast all over the media as "the result of corporate greed". . . completely ignoring the fact that only a small part of a fraction of a percent of the Net went down. Because apparently, the American media doesn't know that there are Internet users outside the US. .
It will all be fine. (Score:4, Funny)
If they argue, just mumble something about irrational exuberance.
Nope, UUNet in no danger (Score:2)
Re:Nope, UUNet in no danger (Score:2, Funny)
Someone would most likely buy them before they were forced, if ever, to shutdown.
Re:Nope, UUNet in no danger (Score:2)
Um, yeah...
Didn't @Home and Nortel say exactly the same thing?
Nothing's going to happen - here's why: (Score:5, Informative)
2. Ditto for a bunch of their other units - i.e. Skytel paging, etc.
3. The current CEO basically founded UUNet - it's his baby - it's not going away. The networks are owned by UUNet Worldcom - they're not going away either.
4. WCom's web hosting and data centers have been profitable for the past 8 quarters - plus, they are among the most well run DC's in the world. They're not going anywhere either.
Long story short - they're not going to get rid of anything making money - which is data and hosting. The worst that's going to happen is that you send your long distance checks to a different carrier. No worries, people.
Re:Nothing's going to happen - here's why: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Ooo! A telecom business with hundreds of milions in debt that has been losing money for a long time now? I'll buy one! No, make it two!!
Re:Nothing's going to happen -- A cavil (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, Sidgemore did not found UUnet -- Rick Adams did. Adams brought Sidgemore on board UUNet because Adams realized that he needed someone with Sidgemore's track record in running telephonic and networking businesses. I think that Adams became CTO of UUnet when he made Sidgemore the CEO.
Re:Nothing's going to happen -- A cavil (Score:2)
Re:Here's what'll happen: (Score:3, Interesting)
That scenario doesn't seem very likely considering that AOL itself has severe financial problems, such as last quarter setting a record for the largest monetary loss ever experienced by any corporation ever at $52 billion. It makes WorldCom look like the very essence of fiscal responsibility.
Keep on running (Score:4, Insightful)
Through Global Crossing's bankruptcy, they've been able to keep service up and running for many of their customers. Now, it's not likely that they're getting new business, but the business that they have still manages to continue to run using a minimal staff. Even though MFN has gone bankrupt, you don't see the power going out at PAIX. Adelphia is defaulting on loans, but my cable modem with them still more or less works. The investors lose; the banks and lenders lose; non-core people get laid off; and eventually, a long time later, the customer loses if they obliviously stick around after the company can't sustain operations anymore.
Worldcom is not bankrupt yet. Many believe it's likely though. CNBC reports they have $2B in the bank (one analyst estimates $1.6B after accelerated repayments), $30B in loans, and $54B in sellable assets (worth $8B at $0.20 on the dollar during a fire sale). It's up to the banks as to whether to kill their goose now that it's not laying gold eggs. Even if WorldCom goes bankrupt, the service will continue for quite a while. Some might buy the assets for pennies on the dollar and operate the same business with a better chance at making a profit. All of the direct investors and the lenders and the investors of the lenders will be left holding the bag, but service will continue.
- ez
(proudly ex-uunet, pre-WorldDom)
Re:Keep on running (Score:2)
I took that as a little peek into his perspective. A corporation is an entity that would not exist except that the charter is granted by the government. Without a corporation, all businesses would be privately owned sole proprietarships or partnerships, with the stockholders (owners and partners) taking share in the liabilities of the company.
So, from a government buereaucrat's perspective, a corporation *is* a little piece of government sanction, recognition, and protection around a business.
Today's outage. (Score:3, Informative)
BGP4 instabilities for a while (Score:2, Interesting)
Lately there have been lots of problems in the European networks, with large numbers of BGP4 routes going missing because of people switching away from ebone. The ebone guys have done a great job with too few experts, but slowly entropy and bit rot is causing problems. The dropped or blackholed or null-routed routes mean that major areas can't see each other for hours on end, until the BGP routes stabilize and find new routes. And those new routes tend to quickly saturate with traffic, leading to lots of lost packets and huge lags.
There is a lot of excess capacity, but none of it is being used for the moment. Putting expensive kit on the ends of the fibres and hiring expensive guys to run it just can't be done in this economy. So the internet isn't going to be as reliable as we've been used to, sites like
Thats the inevetable result of this shakeout, more expensive internet for everyone, and lower reliability for a while. A few years down the road, it will get cheap and reliable again, but that will take some effort.
the AC
its true (Score:2)
yeah, but if they would only enforce [spamhaus.org] their acceptable use policy [worldcom.com], the amount of traffic would only be 10%... ; )
great, let them be bought out by someone who can (Score:3, Insightful)
I may just be me but there seems to be a much higher emphasis on data than in the past ( I know i'm stating the obvious) our company just went with a telecom Allegience for our phone and Data one T1 split. The cost was suprisingly cheaper than say going SBC for phone and DSL. Concidering they gave us free callign between offices. a Stable connection with 16 IP's and any DNS routing we requested. ie. we could host our own Domain. The point I am getting to when one tried doing this in the past the cost was astronomical. Companies like these Allegience are smaller but growing more aggressive, and better managed. Ofcourse the big telecomes are loosing out. It all comes down to service. Why is it when I ask verizon to drop a T1 in my office there are million different charges and an astronomical fee. Yet another company who owns there own cable can do it for half as much and give me ten times better service. no really i mean it. and I dont work for them either.
history lesson (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, Allegiance just acquired (bought isn't the word) Intermedia Business Internet from Worldcom. Worldcom purchased IBI because IBI bought DIGEX (the backbone and hosting provider). IBI spun off Digex (the hosting provider), but maintained enough of an interest for WCOM to buy IBI just to have control of Digex (the hosting provider).
So the original DIGEX backbone is know with Allegiance...
It's not that bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Worldcom is not 50% of the internet.
Recent measures put them somewhere between 10% to 20%, depending on exactly what you're measuring (traffic level? number of users? number of routes?). Even with that level of traffic, some of that has other choices. For instance, a network may be multi-homed to Sprint and UUNet, and choose to move more traffic through UUNet. They wouldn't fall off the net if UUnet went down.
EBone shut down yesterday. One of the "largest and oldest" networks in Europe by their own measure. Frankly, if you weren't single homed to e-bone it was a non-event. No big decrease in traffic. No piles of user complaints. A big nothing. Quite similar to Y2K in fact.
uunets significance to the internet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:uunets significance to the internet (Score:5, Funny)
dave "three dead trolls in a baggie"
How Will WorldCom/UUNet Impact The Internet? (Score:2)
MCI still wants customers... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bad thing™ that we even have to worry (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just a standard business cycle (Score:2)
When lending is lose, when governments print money for instance, there is over-investment in factors of production, in large scale investment. Look at the postings here, you see comments about "excess of bandwidth", and that's a perfect example of the business cycle in action.
Now, as exemplified with the collapse of the ".COM bubble", there is a contraction in the supply of capital. The Federal Reserve tightens control, and there is a shake-out of unprofitable businesses. Worldcomm is just a symptom, it is not a cause. All their creative accounting did was hide the problem, it neither caused it nor prevented it.
However, when the business cycle is on the "down" side, there is an excess of factors of production available. The "bandwidth glut" is ready and waiting to be picked up and utilized more efficiently to the benefit of consumers.
Without this artificial expansion and contraction of the money supply, business would still come and go but not in large waves. Factors of production would be created at a more conservative and sustainable rate.
Industry, both business and personal, flourishes when external factors, such as money supply, are stable. That is why a hard currency standard is a good thing, and prevents the boom/bust cycle that fiat currencies foster.
Worldcomm's customers still want service, Worldcomm's cables are in the ground, their routers and workers still exist. I don't care if the name of the owner changes, so long as they are allowed to fail if they cannot supply the wants of the consumers more efficiently than Worldcomm did.
Bob-
You assume "gold" must be the standard. (Score:2)
People have utilized many different things for money, the only requirement is that people agree to use it and use it widely. Gold gained the widest exceptance in the "west", but silver has been used just as well.
If "gold" were to suddenly lose its scarcity, it might itself be used in some form of fiat currency, or (I believe more likely) people would simply shift to silver, or paladium, or platinum, or even iron.
It doesn't matter what the medium of exchange is, it is only important that no one or no small group control its supply. With that control comes abuse, as is seen with fiat currencies everywhere and everywhen.
Bob-
Bankruptcy certain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Will the UUNET network go dark? Not a chance. If/When WCOME does have to sell off its assets some other provider will be right there and will probably take the entire division-people and all. FUD does make good news though.
Re:Bankruptcy certain? (Score:5, Insightful)
WCOME has bonds, like all companies do. There is a particularly interesting set, I believe valued around 2.5 Billion that come due in January or Feburary.
They had been trying to work a plan already this year to borrow 5 Billion, and turn around and use that to pay the 2.5 Billion back, and have 2.5 Billion in new cash. The banks weren't buying it though, and no one was loaning them money. At this particular moment, the chance of them borrowing another 2.5 Billion (to pay back the bonds) is about zero, and if they don't the creditors will almost definately force them into bankruptcy.
Now, they have some time to sort things out and get new financing in place. The only other wrinkle is that this fraud puts them in default on pretty much all of the rest of their 30 Billion in bonds. No one has demanded accelerated repayment yet, but that is within their rights.
So, for the next 6 months they have to convince everyone they owe money to that they are going to be able to pay it all back, or file (because if they don't the creditors would file for them). If they manage to walk that tightrope early next year they must then get (probably from the same people) a new loan for 2.5 Billion, or sell off enough assets to raise 2.5 Billion to just pay it outright.
This is but the tip of the iceberg of their financial woes though. There are hundreds of other problems. It is going to be extremely hard for them to avoid Chatper 11. Perhaps a in a a thousand shot right now.
Most importantly, a CEO will always say they are not going to go bankrupt. If they said they were before they filed all sorts of bad things would happen (creditors taking stuff before the filing, for one), so that's not an option. That will be the trumpet they carry until the chapter 11 press release.
Re:Bankruptcy certain? (Score:2)
The people who will loan them the money are really the pivotal figures in this equation. Since the creditors are already into WCOME for quite a bit, they may give them another 5B with the hopes that they can get out later with less of a loss. It is all going to depend on how much sweet talking the WCOME CEO can do, and if he can come up with a convincing plan to recovery(sell some divisons, etc...)
It is going to be extremely hard for them to avoid Chatper 11.
I agree in the long term. I just don't think they are going to be filing next week (hence the FUD comment
Re:Bankruptcy certain? (Score:2)
Hell yeah, and I rode that sucker. A thousand shares for $70? Thank you, media frenzy!
Worldcom owns OzEmail a huge Australian ISP (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm scared (Score:2)
Vint Cerf (Score:2)
Ebone is gone (Score:2)
Multiple bankruptcies (Score:2)
Remember last year, when that beeper service provider went down and tens of millions of beepers stopped working? It's a real worry.
WorldCom is going nowhere..... (Score:2, Insightful)
1. WorldCom won't go under because it's not in their creditors' best interest. WCom could file bankruptcy today and nobody would be surprised. If WCom owes you money you just got screwed. They'll work out a financial plan that helps WC recover and allows the creditors to get their money, because THAT is what makes the world go 'round.
2. There was definitely some shady accounting and subpar management, but I don't think that was their biggest error. WCom banked on continued growth in the tech sector. I'm not sure if you remember this, but it crashed hard. Now they're left with a backbone to support 20 years of consistent growth that's not happening, and a bill to match. They gambled and they lost...big.
3. Saying that only 5-10% of the world's fiber is lit is perhaps the most misleading statement here. So let's say you're going to run 1000 miles of fiber from Chicago to New York. The expense is not the fiber, it's 1000 miles of ditch. So you lay a 100 strand bundle, but you only need 5 strands....right now. That's only 5% lit. But it's still yours and surely you'll be damned if you're going to let me have it.
No, I'm not a WorldCom employee, but I'm a big fan and a big customer. No, their service isn't that bad. If you think I'm wrong, try ATT.
KPNQwest/Europe (Score:2)
Diversification (Score:2)
It is likely the other units are dragging down.
Re:Diversification (Score:2)
There are only two solutions to the problem that will emerge from the market: either asset strippers will get involved, buy the capital assets at bargain basement prices and thereby start with a low cost model that can survive; or, the assets of failing companies will be consolidated into bigger and bigger companies which will simply (as happens in places like New Zealand) create artificial scarcity in order to justify their existing high cost models.
There's negative feedback there (Score:2)
If the situation turns bad enough for them, they will end facing bankruptcy as well. Anyhow, it's always better not to have a huge debt than to get rid of it through bankruptcy.
Unless you cheat, of course. As everybody knows, Microsoft, for instance, is being investigated by the SEC for making their earnings seem lower than the true figures.
Dark fibre? (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem: Most of the dark fibre out there has no equipment hooked up to it. So, the telcos and other large ISPs will have to install all kinds of new ATM switches, SONET Transport Nodes, et al.
Thing is, these switches and transport nodes cost mucho dinero. (fully outfitted switches/TNs cost millions... EACH) Mucho dinero is something most telcos and ISPs *don't* have. Capital budgets have been slashed since the dot-com era.
So where are the telcos and ISPs going to get all of this upgrade money? Not from banks, they've already been burned by 360.net, Global Crossing and now WorldCom.
Things may turn out to be a trickier situation than you might think.
Re:you cant be serious (Score:2)