[77911] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon wins MCI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Oberman)
Mon Feb 14 14:34:06 2005
To: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
Cc: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com>,
"'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:22:36 PST."
<Pine.LNX.4.44.0502141116120.3084-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:31:20 -0800
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> 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
