| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SteveHC
Dan isn't smart enough to hire me
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Posts: 498
Location: Southwest Florida
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:02 pm Post subject: 4/10/2013 update |
 |
|
The company has indicated its intention to use profits to engage in another share buy-back. Consequently share price is now back up to around $17.
I take this as a pretty strong indication that the company plans on sticking around for quite a while and not allowing itself to be bought out by a larger company. (If share price had remained too low it could have become a takeover target, most likely by some larger telecom competitor who in order to eliminate competition could've bought it cheaply and then simply shut it down).
On the down side, this can also be seen as an indication that the company does not plan on using profits to expand its no-additional-charge calling service to include more non-incumbent carriers/exchanges etc., at least at this point in time... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mberlant
Dan Should Pay Me
Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Posts: 829
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
What a shame that they can get away with using profits for a buyback instead of using them for paying settlement fees to all correspondent telephone companies. Wouldn't the honorable thing be to deliver what your advertising promises, instead of making a material change in�the contract after it has been executed and paid for?
Certainly, we all deserve to receive the service we contracted for at the time we rendered payment. Denying call completion to some destinations in the US and Canada, after we contracted and paid up front for a year (or more) of call completion to every destination in the US and Canada, is nothing less than bait-and-switch. It is analogous to paying cash for a new car, bringing it in to the dealer for its 3-month checkup, and finding that the dealer has installed a coin collector on the dashboard that you must now feed every time you want to use Reverse gear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me
Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Wonder which large telecom company feels so squeezed by MJ so that they would be willing to spend gigabucks in order to get them out of their way.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SteveHC
Dan isn't smart enough to hire me
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Posts: 498
Location: Southwest Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cell14 wrote: | | Wonder which large telecom company feels so squeezed by MJ so that they would be willing to spend gigabucks in order to get them out of their way.... |
- No "gigabucks" needed - MJ's a small-cap, and the lower its stock price the cheaper it would be to acquire it. For a "real-life" example, just look at what AT&T Wireless did with/to Telecorp PCS - bought it then PROMPTLY shut it down, to eliminate competition (AT&T was never in the PCS business and still isn't, only GSM). (BTW - If you dig deeply enough you'll discover that MJ's G. Vento was directly involved in that Telecorp PCS sale to AT&T...)
Last edited by SteveHC on Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me
Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Steve, in my neighborhood barely anyone has POTS. Most people switched to TV/phone bundles from ATT or Comcast ( and that's VOIP too ) or switched to cell phones. So did many small businesses, Comcast offers small business bundles. Those businesses who keep ATT do it for reliability reason and they would not think for a split second to get MJ. From all my neighbors, only one uses MJ for travel and one uses Localphone but not even for VOIP just for international long distance from cell phone. All the rest is bundles/cell phones.
POTS is not something ATT or cables or Verizon care much about these days. What they want is a monopoly/duopoly in broadband and in wireless and if they can get rid off small VOIP as a part of their bribing/lobbying legislative efforts that's an icing or the cake but nothing they would spend any real money on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SteveHC
Dan isn't smart enough to hire me
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Posts: 498
Location: Southwest Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cell14 wrote: | | ...if they can get rid off small VOIP as a part of their bribing/lobbying legislative efforts that's an icing or the cake but nothing they would spend any real money on. |
- whatever you say... 
Just know that the larger POTS telecoms acquired a bunch of smaller early wireless carriers to get their "toe-hold" in the wireless business, then used their largess to acquire and DISMANTLE remaining smaller ones (see reference to Telecorp PCS in my previous post for an example). Current VOIP-only companies are at *least* as big of a threat to them, they're already beginning a *similar* process regarding VOIP (step 1 = quietly migrating their own "POTS" services over to VOIP BTW), and it would cost a lot less money to acquire companies like MJ than it did to acquire wireless carriers. And the cut-rate VOIP-only companies don't just eat into their "POTS" revenues, they ALSO eat into their *cellular* revenues (and they *know* this VERY well).
Of course, there are a couple of other possible sources of motivation for the share buy-backs - like a) trying to pacify current shareholders, especially given the lawsuit(s); and b) using corporate profits to indirectly boost the stock's value in order to increase the wealth of the company's largest shareholders - who "happen" to be company insiders (*probably* not likely given that everyone's now looking so closely at the company's financials and stock-related operations). But as far as I can tell, corporate stock buy-backs are most often employed to help prevent unwanted takeover attempts by other companies.
At any rate, you might want to take a look at this recent article:
http://www.businessrecord.com/Content/Tech---Innovation/Tech---Innovation/Article/Phone-companies-try-to-position-themselves-as-winners-in-VoIP-regulatory-battle/172/834/57416
- As large companies such as AT&T get heavily into VOIP, you can bet your bippie that they'll look to CRUSH their competition in any way that they can, *especially* if VOIP remains largely "deregulated." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me
Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SteveHC wrote: |
Just know that the larger POTS telecoms acquired a bunch of smaller early wireless carriers to get their "toe-hold" in the wireless business, then used their largess to acquire and DISMANTLE remaining smaller ones (see reference to Telecorp PCS in my previous post for an example). Current VOIP-only companies are at *least* as big of a threat to them, they're already beginning a *similar* process regarding VOIP (step 1 = quietly migrating their own "POTS" services over to VOIP BTW), and it would cost a lot less money to acquire companies like MJ than it did to acquire wireless carriers. And the cut-rate VOIP-only companies don't just eat into their "POTS" revenues, they ALSO eat into their *cellular* revenues (and they *know* this VERY well).
|
Wireless is an entirely different beast. Yes, Verizon and ATT did just about everything to crush and devour their competion and unfortunately quite successfully. But it was in first place about coverage and spectrum. No spectrum= no LTE, no LTE= you toast. I do not believe that they have formidable land line revenue losses and even less on wireless because the carriers are increasingly pushing more or less unlimited plans anyway. 
btw the above link will not work.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SteveHC
Dan isn't smart enough to hire me
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Posts: 498
Location: Southwest Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cell14 wrote: | | btw the above link will not work. |
- Businessrecord.com appears to be down for the time being. The link points to a really interesting article that includes portions of an interview with an AT&T exec about how it is/wants to migrate service over to VOIP in a BIG way and lobby gov to keep VOIP relatively unregulated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mberlant
Dan Should Pay Me
Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Posts: 829
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SteveHC wrote: | | The link points to a really interesting article that includes portions of an interview with an AT&T exec about how it is/wants to migrate service over to VOIP in a BIG way and lobby gov to keep VOIP relatively unregulated. |
That's not surprising. Landline provisioning comes with a service requirement to be up virtually 100% of the time, including during power outages. By getting permission to migrate to VoIP they can lay blame for future outages on "mechanisms beyond our control" without reducing their prices very much.
Moreover, VoIP services will not reliably support data services faster than 2400bps without additional endpoint equipment. This means no more fax service unless you pay more, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SteveHC
Dan isn't smart enough to hire me
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Posts: 498
Location: Southwest Florida
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mberlant wrote: | By getting permission to migrate to VoIP they can lay blame for future outages on "mechanisms beyond our control" without reducing their prices very much.
Moreover, VoIP services will not reliably support data services faster than 2400bps without additional endpoint equipment. This means no more fax service unless you pay more, etc. |
- They're not asking for permission- at least not at this point in time. Some traditional "landline" providers are already beginning to migrate over to VOIP "behind the scenes" and don't necessarily require government permission to do so.
For all practical purposes there are two types of consumer VOIP services - the type that uses the public Internet (such as MJ) and which is currently largely unregulated, and the type that uses a much more "closed" IP service (such as cable tv company-provided "digital" telephone service) and which may or may not be highly regulated depending upon many factors.
Some major legacy ("incumbent") carriers have already begun migrating from POTS service to the SECOND type of VOIP service that I referred to - and for all practical purposes have not required "permission" to do so. It is my understanding that at this point in time, at least, AT&T is simply lobbying the feds to keep the FIRST type of VOIP service - the type that relies on the public Internet - unregulated.
BTW - The link that I posted above that points to the relevant article/interview is now working again (businessrecord.com is back up and running). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me
Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Link works now indeed.
Whenever AT&Tea wants deregulate something I get very suspicious. That fact that this company wants to create a monopoly/oligopoly is beyond obvious.
'Regulation' and ' deregulation' are empty words without exactly knowing the facts. In the seventies, regulation protected monopolies ( like that of old ATT)
Now, deregulation is helping to create new monopolies ( like the new ATT). The devil is always in the detail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
