So apparently VM is special and can't build the kinds of high speed networks they manage in different countries all over the world, despite the billions of investment they could have made any time in the last 20 years, but didn't?
The customer doesn't care about VM's poor infrastructure due to a lack of investment - they just care that unfixed over-subscription and underpowered backbone doesn't give them the service they pay for.
Do you by any chance work for VM in their network planning department and can give us an insight into the lack of upgrading other than "it's too much money and we don't want to spend it"?
Oh what a simple outlook on business you have
So for the third time, that’s a no on the HFC migration experience? I’d guess finance/tax/history aren’t areas of expertise either?
Network build historically is an utter money pit, especially upto the recent code reforms that were brought in to make it easier (and cheaper), the potential ROI was initially estimated in decades and for the most part the closest anyone got to making money from those early investments was is if they were lucky enough to have the debt repaid in a subsequent sale/refinancing exercise and that relied on finding someone dumb enough to front the money, which got progressively harder as the markets understood they wouldn’t see repayment due to the low RGU per customer and % of market penetration. Generally investors/financiers lost money or got screwed when the operators had to be sold at a loss and did debt to equity. Strangely enough the list of finance providers got a little thin on high risk investments, especially when things crashed globally. Anyway, despite your opinion, investors weren’t queueing up to throw billions at re-building existing network, at least not on terms that made financial sense, so you had minimal build other than the easy fill-in or where a developer was picking up the bill.
Then LG came along, they have a proven track record in other markets and unlike many before them have a better understanding of how the company should work. You’ll have seen that in the form of standardised CPE and the move for new build to move to RFoG where it’s viable. They have also done a nunber of back end improvements/standardisation which has been ongoing - all be it at a slower pace - for decades prior, but they prioritised them.
That still doesn’t alter the fundamental issues:
Network build is expensive.
Expense is easier to justify when you get something, even if that something is only potential.
It’s therefore easier to justify new build passing new premises (remember that’s what our government has focused on) than it is to justify similar expense to re-cable existing areas. New premises are also potentially a pathway to government subsidy, so what exactly do you think is going to be given priority?