I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too. Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays < 7B. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=2&u=/washpost/2005021 4/ts_washpost/a22085_2005feb13 -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan@verisign.com
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too.
What, don't you like UUVeriNET even better? :)
Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays < 7B.
I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS, WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well? -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:22:36 -0800 (PST) From: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too.
What, don't you like UUVeriNET even better? :)
Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays < 7B.
I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS, WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well?
The articles I have read indicate that Verizon was not the best offer. Qwest bid $7B. But MCI wanted to be bought by someone who was financially stable and Qwest has a huge debt load which the purchase of MCI would only increase. They were also looking for a better known purchaser and Qwest is not as familiar to the public as Verizon ("Can you here me, now?") To me, it sounds like MCI determined that it could not succeed on its own and that "forced" the sale and MCI seemed to want Verizon to buy them from the start because of the long-term value to shareholders and bond holders, the REAL owners of the company. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:22:36 -0800 (PST) From: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too.
What, don't you like UUVeriNET even better? :)
Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays < 7B.
I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS, WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well?
The articles I have read indicate that Verizon was not the best offer. Qwest bid $7B. But MCI wanted to be bought by someone who was financially stable and Qwest has a huge debt load which the purchase of MCI would only increase. They were also looking for a better known purchaser and Qwest is not as familiar to the public as Verizon ("Can you here me, now?")
To me, it sounds like MCI determined that it could not succeed on its own and that "forced" the sale and MCI seemed to want Verizon to buy them from the start because of the long-term value to shareholders and bond holders, the REAL owners of the company.
Add to that that Verizon also agreed to assume $4B in MCI debts and the purchase price doesn't look so low anymore. Also, despite all the news of Qwest's offer, according to what I read Verizon has been in talks with MCI for 2 years now, so they probably had a much more detailed agreement ironed out to MCI's liking. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays < 7B.
I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS, WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well?
But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? First thing Verizon will have to do is fire the entire billing department and replace them with people/systems that can generate correct bills and send them to the correct customers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays < 7B.
I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS, WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well?
But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? First thing Verizon will have to do is fire the entire billing department and replace them with people/systems that can generate correct bills and send them to the correct customers.
uhm, thats the '70 billing departments' ... or so said the SEC's info about how many billing systems were 'integrated' during the bernie-dynastic-times.
But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? First thing Verizon will have to do is fire the entire billing department and replace them with people/systems that can generate correct bills and send them to the correct customers.
<dripping with sarcasm> Thats right! I forgot that Verizon was capable of billing correctly! </dripping with sarcasm> -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? First thing Verizon will have to do is fire the entire billing department and replace them with people/systems that can generate correct bills and send them to the correct customers.
<dripping with sarcasm>
Thats right! I forgot that Verizon was capable of billing correctly!
</dripping with sarcasm>
So the real question is do we scream bloody murder about the current incorrect MCI billing before or after Verizon screws it up? Let's see - MCI already fired all the customer service people.... Mark
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > > But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? First thing > > > Verizon will have to do is fire the entire billing department > > > and replace them with people/systems that can generate correct > > > bills and send them to the correct customers. > > <dripping with sarcasm> > > Thats right! I forgot that Verizon was capable of billing > > correctly! > > </dripping with sarcasm> > So the real question is do we scream bloody murder about the current > incorrect MCI billing before or after Verizon screws it up? Let's see > - MCI already fired all the customer service people.... some of customer service is still here... we didn't all get sent overseas yet.
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? First thing Verizon will have to do is fire the entire billing department and replace them with people/systems that can generate correct bills and send them to the correct customers.
<dripping with sarcasm> Thats right! I forgot that Verizon was capable of billing correctly! </dripping with sarcasm>
So the real question is do we scream bloody murder about the current incorrect MCI billing before or after Verizon screws it up? Let's see - MCI already fired all the customer service people....
some of customer service is still here... we didn't all get sent overseas yet.
I think of you as "Security" rather than customer service - and your group still does a great job. I have absolutely no complaints in that regard. I like UUNet's network quite a bit (other than the billing department). Mark
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? First thing Verizon will have to do is fire the entire billing department and replace them with people/systems that can generate correct bills and send them to the correct customers.
<dripping with sarcasm> Thats right! I forgot that Verizon was capable of billing correctly! </dripping with sarcasm>
So the real question is do we scream bloody murder about the current incorrect MCI billing before or after Verizon screws it up? Let's see - MCI already fired all the customer service people....
some of customer service is still here... we didn't all get sent overseas yet.
I think of you as "Security" rather than customer service - and your
I was mostly joking ;) I do know that the billing department(s) have had their 'issues' (large and small) over the years ;(
Jon Lewis wrote:
But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? First thing Verizon will have to do is fire the entire billing department and replace them with people/systems that can generate correct bills and send them to the correct customers.
You've got to be kidding me! Fear the day this happens. It took Verizon 15 MONTHS to fix a billing dispute we've had from just ONE DS3 circuit. In that time they've accidently interupted service twice (for hours at a time) while they attempt to "fix the billing issue". MCI's billing is like a vacation compared to all the billing problems we've had with Verizon. -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor\@(inoc.net|gmail.com) PGP: http://www.inoc.net/~dev/ Key fingerprint = 1E02 DABE F989 BC03 3DF5 0E93 8D02 9D0B CB1A A7B0 Being married to a programmer is like having a cat. You talk to it but you're never really sure if it hears you, much less comprehends what you say.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 11:38:10PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was?
<chuckle> Well, by one metric, they're #1: Rank ISP Number of currently-listed spam issues --- --- -------------------------------------- 1 mci.com 193 2 kornet.net 164 3 sbc.com 119 4 comcast.net 100 5 xo.com 78 6 above.net 75 7 crc.net.cn 68 8 verizon.net 67 9 level3.net 64 10 interbusiness.it 56 (from the Spamhaus top ten list (http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics.lasso)) Combining entries 1 and 8 puts them even further out in front. ---Rsk
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 11:38:10PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was?
<chuckle> Well, by one metric, they're #1:
Rank ISP Number of currently-listed spam issues --- --- -------------------------------------- 1 mci.com 193 2 kornet.net 164 3 sbc.com 119 4 comcast.net 100 5 xo.com 78 6 above.net 75 7 crc.net.cn 68 8 verizon.net 67 9 level3.net 64 10 interbusiness.it 56
(from the Spamhaus top ten list (http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics.lasso))
we aim to please? or was there some hidden meaning to your email/troll?
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 06:56:54PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
we aim to please? or was there some hidden meaning to your email/troll?
1. I didn't realize that accurately reporting the facts was now considered a "troll". Fascinating. 2. Nope, there's no hidden meaning -- unless you're someone with the authority, integrity and courage to pull the plug on those 193 spam operations. By close-of-business today would be just fine, thanks. Those of us absorbing the operational costs of dealing with the abuse they're cranking out would really appreciate it. 3. If that made you uncomfortable, you probably don't want to read this: Should MCI Be Profiting From Knowingly Hosting Spam Gangs? http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=158 ---Rsk
participants (10)
-
Alex Rubenstein -
Christopher L. Morrow -
Hannigan, Martin -
Jeff Wheeler -
Jon Lewis -
Kevin Oberman -
Mark Radabaugh -
Rich Kulawiec -
Robert Blayzor -
william(at)elan.net