Losing customers.

A year after Frontier Communications assumed control of Verizon’s assets in the Pacific Northwest, customers are fleeing the company’s inherited fiber-to-the-home service FiOS, after announcing a massive (since suspended, except in Indiana) 46 percent rate hike for the television portion of the service.  A new $500 installation fee has kept all but the bravest from considering replacing customers who have left for Comcast and various satellite TV providers.

Frontier’s second-quarter financial results revealed the company has lost at least 14,000 out of 112,000 FiOS TV customers in the region (and in the Fort Wayne, Ind. market, where the service is also available.)

Early reaction to the original rate hike announcement started customers shopping for another provider — mostly Comcast, which competes in all three states where Frontier FiOS operates.  Even after the rate hike was suspended in some markets, intense marketing activity by Frontier to drive customers towards its partnership with satellite provider DirecTV managed to convince at least some of those customers to pull the plug on fiber in return for a free year of satellite TV, although an even larger number presumably switched to the cable competition.

D.A. Davidson, a financial consulting firm, told The Oregonian the message was clear.

“They would love to get rid of the FiOS TV customers,” Donna Jaegers, who follows Frontier, told the newspaper. “They’re programming costs are very high compared to the rates that they charge.”

Jaegers said Frontier Communications completely botched their efforts to transition customers away from FiOS TV towards satellite, because most of those departing headed for the cable competition, attracted by promotional offers and convenient billing.

Many others simply don’t want a satellite dish on their roof, and are confounded about Frontier’s message that satellite TV is somehow better than fiber-to-the-home service.

Frontier admits its FiOS service is now underutilized, but claims it will continue to provide the service where it already exists.

Wilderotter

Frontier Claims Its DSL Service is Better Than Cable Broadband

Frontier’s general business plan is to provide DSL service in rural areas where it faces little or no competition, and most of Frontier’s investment has been to upgrade Verizon’s landline network to sustain 1-3Mbps DSL service, for which it routinely charges the same (or more) for standalone broadband service that its cable competitors charge for much faster speeds.

But Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter says their DSL service is better than the cable competition.

“A key differentiator between our network and cable competition is that you consistently get the speed you pay for,” Wilderotter told investors on a conference call. “There’s no sharing at the local level. High demand for bandwidth-intensive applications like video are putting pressure on all wired networks. To that end, we want to make sure that we have more than enough capacity to satisfy the expectations of our customers. We’re spending capital in all parts of the network with specific emphasis in the middle mile, which will enable us to consistently deliver a quality customer experience for our customers of today and tomorrow.”

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter defends anemic broadband additions during the 2nd quarter of 2011 and tries to convince investors DSL service is better than the cable competition. August 3, 2011. (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Netflix Traffic Represents 25% of Frontier’s Broadband Traffic; Online Video — 50%

Wilderotter admitted Frontier’s broadband network is overcongested in many regions, which she partly blamed for the company’s anemic addition of new broadband customers.

She noted Netflix, which has itself consistently rated Frontier the worst wired broadband provider in the country for being able to deliver consistent, high quality access to their streaming service, represents one-quarter of all capacity usage of Frontier’s broadband network.

“Video is about 50 percent,” Wilderotter added.  In an investor conference call, she explained network congestion in more detail:

“In [the second quarter], we had many areas with unacceptable levels of network congestion, which negatively impacted our growth in net high-speed additions.” Wilderotter said. “We believe all of the major congestion issues will be fixed by the end of [the third quarter], and that will enable us to drive higher growth and net broadband activation in [former Verizon service areas.]”

“What we decided to do is to go for fixing the middle mile, which is the [central office] to the […] neighborhood and to expand that capability by 100-fold. And then also, expand from the [central office] out to the Internet and make sure that we have huge capacity to deliver and receive capability to our customers. So when we sell 6 meg, 10 meg, 25 meg, 50 meg, the customer gets what we sell them and that was extremely important for us.”

“So what we did is in the areas where we saw the congestion increase based upon usage increases, and we’ve built new households. We’ve held off on marketing to a lot of those new households until we fixed the congestion problem because we didn’t want to exacerbate what we had already. We’ve shifted capital in terms of the mix of how we’ve spent capital to fix this problem. I’d say we’re probably 75% of the way there in fixing congestion. This quarter is another big quarter for us to get all of the major issues out of the network, which will allow us in the back end of this quarter through the fourth quarter, to really start pushing the penetration levels where we’ve built new households in the areas that have been affected by congestion.”

Frontier Introduces Line Bonded DSL — Two Connections Can Improve DSL Speeds

Frontier Faster? Frontier announces line bonded DSL.

Frontier Communications also announced the introduction of Frontier Second Connect, a DSL line bonding product that delivers two physical connections to a single household.  Line bonding allows for improved broadband speeds.

“Second Connect gives our customers two exclusive connections in one household, and we’re the only provider in every market that can do that,” Wilderotter claimed.

In more urban markets, Frontier’s DSL speeds are woefully behind those available from most cable competitors.  Frontier has begun upgrading some of their legacy service areas and retiring older equipment in an effort to improve the quality of service.

“The real initiatives that we have underway are called middle mile, interoffice facilities, as well as some of the more aged equipment that’s in the network,” said Dan McCarthy, Frontier’s chief operating officer. “So as we go through, there’s about 600 projects that are underway today that will improve both the speed and capability.”

“We’ve inherited markets that there has not been upgrades to capacity in these markets for many years and fixes to the networks, plus the elements as the DSLAMs, even the DSLAMs themselves are old,” Wilderotter said. “So we’re replacing network elements in the neighborhood. We’re splitting them and moving customers to other network elements to make sure that they have a good experience.”

Frontier executives answer a question from a Wall Street banker about DSL speeds and congestion problems on Frontier’s broadband network. A detailed technical discussion ensues as the company tells investors it is redirecting some capital to fixing Frontier’s overcongested network. August 3, 2011. (5 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Frontier Still Losing More than 8% Of Its Landline Customers Every Year

Despite broadband rollouts and incremental improvements, more than eight percent of Frontier’s landline customers disconnect service permanently every year.  Frontier called that disconnect rate an improvement over its line losses last year, which exceeded 11 percent in some areas.

“Total line losses improved to an 8.6% year-over-year decline, our lowest level since taking ownership when the pro forma loss rate was 9.7%,” reported Wilderotter. “We also improved [the] loss rate [in former Verizon service areas to] 10.1% compared to 11.4% in Q2 2010.”

Most of Frontier’s departing customers are switching to cable providers and/or cell phone service.

(Update 8-23-2011: We are now told in many areas, Frontier’s Second Connect service is not actually a bonded DSL product, but rather a “dry loop” second DSL line that carries the same speed as your primary line.  Presumably, household members can divide up who uses which DSL circuit for Internet access.  The charge for Second Connect in ex-Verizon service areas is $14.99 per month plus a second mandatory monthly modem rental fee of $6.99. If the web link does not work, it means the service is not available in your service area.)

U.S. Cellular Monday told investors the company plans to abandon unlimited data service sometime in the next two or three quarters in favor of tiered data plans similar to what is on offer from AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

U.S. Cellular president and CEO Mary Dillon told investors the company is changing pricing as a result of “significant changes in pricing strategies” at their larger competitors, who have moved away from unlimited data plans over the last year.  Dillon applauded the adoption of tiered data pricing, but noted increasing pricing pressure in the market.

For the nation’s sixth largest wireless carrier, best known in the midwest, northern New England, the Carolinas, and northern California, being a regional provider in an increasingly concentrated wireless marketplace has some on Wall Street concerned about the long term viability of smaller cell phone companies.

Blaming the continuing challenges of “an extremely competitive market and a sluggish economy in which carriers continue to fight for a dwindling pool of new subscribers and the cost of acquiring switchers are significant,” the company reported a net loss of 41,000 customers during the last quarter.  Only 226,000 new customers signed up, down from 307,000 in the prior year quarter.  Another 17,000 prepaid customers dropped U.S. Cellular last quarter as well.  U.S. Cellular now has just under six million customers in all.

Adrian Mill from Eagle Capital noted the customer losses — presumably to larger AT&T or Verizon Wireless, and pondered how long the company can continue to exist on its own in a market increasingly dominated by those two larger carriers:

“I know you guys did a lot of work a couple years ago on whether our regional cellular company could still be relevant and looked at ways in other industries and had some good data from it.

I’m just curious if after the past couple quarters of results where we’ve now seen everybody lose share to AT&T and Verizon if that was something you thought might happen in short term or if it’s been surprising?

If its been surprising, how long would you guys potentially consider losing subs before you do a strategic transaction or consider a sale?”

U.S. Cellular executives didn’t directly answer the question, but acknowledged the wireless carrier does have challenges in the marketplace its larger competitors don’t have.  They include:

• Access to coveted smartphones, particularly Apple’s iPhone, which continues to be unavailable from smaller, regional wireless carriers;
• Access to sufficient wireless spectrum to deploy robust data networks to meet customer demand;
• Capital requirements to build and expand the next 4G generation of wireless;
• The downward pressure on smartphone equipment pricing due to competition and expensive equipment subsidies;
• Roaming agreements to ensure nationwide coverage for voice and data services.

U.S. Cellular's primary service areas

Company officials told investors U.S. Cellular intends to continue to compete for new customers, leveraging its top consumer ratings for reliable service and satisfaction with the deployment of its own 4G LTE wireless network.  But first it intends to re-align pricing to reduce costs.

Alan Ferber, U.S. Cellular’s executive vice-president, sales operations, notes U.S. Cellular wants to see more of its customers upgrade to smartphones, which guarantee higher revenues per customer from the higher-priced service plans that accompany the phones.  The company needs less expensive phones from manufacturers, because consumers typically won’t pay more than $200 for a smartphone that comes with a 2-year service agreement.

Ken Meyers, chief financial officer for the company, has been crunching the numbers on smartphone equipment costs and is grateful for the presence of Android phones in the marketplace, which are starting to drive phone prices downwards.

“[It’s] exciting to me is to see what’s happening with the Android phone cost that will allow carriers to start to recapture some of the economics needed to support LTE [4G] investment and the subsidization of those smartphones, whereas that works on a $200 smartphone but if I’m subsidizing $400 or $500 suddenly most of that revenue isn’t going to pay for the network,” Meyers said.

Ferber expects to deliver new smartphones to U.S. Cellular customers for less than $200 by the holiday season, so customers will find the initial cost for phones lower than ever.  But Ferber admits the company’s forthcoming tiered data pricing means increased revenue and “better cost controls” over the life of a customer’s 2-year contract.

“We have also talked about things like tier data pricing on a going forward basis,” Ferber said. “We do believe that has at least two major benefits. The first is to align data revenue with data cost better and the second is to, in combination with the lower cost smartphones, enable more customers to get into a smartphone.”

But Ferber also acknowledges the company’s move to LTE 4G technology will actually cut the company’s costs to deliver that data — great news to investors, but potentially higher cell phone bills for consumers.

“Over the long turn it’ll certainly make the economics much more attractive,” Ferber said.

Other highlights from Monday’s conference call:

• U.S. Cellular will not acquire other providers not within or adjacent to its current operations, but is stockpiling cash for the potential purchase of any T-Mobile territories the federal government requires AT&T to divest as part of any merger agreement.  T-Mobile is not a major competitor in most of U.S. Cellular’s more-rural/suburban markets, but if U.S. Cellular does acquire any of these customers, they will have to convert them from T-Mobile’s GSM network to the company’s CDMA network;
• Data roaming from Verizon and Sprint customers traveling through U.S. Cellular’s service areas have brought increased traffic to the company’s data network, and roaming revenue with it;
• System operations expenses of $228 million were up $14 million or 7% year-over-year. This was due primarily to higher usage and roaming expenses as customers use more data services both on and off U.S. Cellular’s network. Through June of this year, total data of network usage increased nearly 400% over the same period last year.

“We’ve been talking for some time that broadband for us is not just about customer growth… it’s about revenue growth.” — Anthony Thomas, Windstream’s Chief Financial Officer

For the first time in some time, Windstream reported revenue growth during the second quarter of 2011.  The independent landline telephone company that last week acquired Rochester-based PAETEC Corporation managed to win new revenue from its business services unit and equipment sales, even as it continues to lose core landline customers, who are disconnecting service in favor of cell phones or cable telephone products.

It added up to a measurable, but meager growth of 0.1 percent for the company year-over-year during the second quarter.

Like many traditional wireline phone companies, Windstream is betting the farm in their largely rural and suburban service areas on selling broadband and maintaining the allegiance of their business customers, challenged in larger cities by increasingly aggressive “Business Class” products from competing cable companies.

Windstream executives responded to questions from Wall Street bankers during their second quarter conference call held last Friday.

While several investment firms were happy to see Windstream manage some revenue growth, several zeroed in on the company’s increased capital expenditures.  Windstream reports the company will continue major investments in fiber and broadband services, but not primarily for their residential retail customers.  Instead, Windstream hopes to capitalize on the “high margin” business of selling fiber-based cell tower services, primarily to support forthcoming 4G deployments.

Windstream officials faced some hesitancy from Wall Street about the company’s spending during Friday’s conference call, particularly from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs.

Anthony Thomas, chief financial officer for Windstream, defended the investments.

“The most important part of fiber-to-the-tower projects are the initial investments. Those are very high-margin businesses,” Thomas said. “But you have be comfortable with the upfront capital and be patient at recognizing those are 6-to 12-month investment time horizons. But once you start bringing those revenues in, the actual cost of operating a tower is low.”

Wall Street also expressed concerns about consumer broadband traffic growth, but did not broach the subject of usage control measures like usage caps or metered billing.  Windstream acknowledged the growth, primarily from online video, and said it had well-equipped data centers to handle the traffic.

Windsteam’s Consumer Strategy: Bundle Customers & Keep Them Away from Cable TV

It's all about the bundle.

Online video may be an asset for Windstream, which is facing increasing challenges retaining landline customers and up-selling them other products like broadband.  That competition comes primarily from cable companies, who are targeting Windstream customers with invitations to cut their landline service and bring all of their telecommunications business to cable.

Traditional phone companies have a major weakness in their product bundle: video.  Independent phone companies, in particular, are usually reliant on satellite TV partners to support the television component of a traditional “triple play” bundle.  Windstream’s network is capable of telephone and slow speed broadband in most areas, but the company’s involvement in video is largely left to a third party satellite-TV provider.

Customers who do not want satellite TV service may be easily attracted to a local cable provider.  But as an increasing amount of video viewing is moving online, Windstream may find customers increasingly tolerant of doing their viewing online, reducing the importance of a video package.

Windstream’s strategies to keep customers:

• Sell customers on product bundles, now enhanced with online security/antivirus options and on-call technical support for computer-related technical issues;
• Pitch Windstream’s Lifetime Price Guarantee, which locks in a single price for basic services, good as long as you remain a customer;
• Challenge cable competitors head-on with its “Quitter Campaign,” which tries to convince cable customers to “quit cable” in favor of Windstream;
• Offer faster broadband speeds in limited areas to satisfy premium customer demand.

Windstream Tries to Convince Customers the Broadband Speeds It Doesn’t Offer Do Not Matter for Most

Windstream’s efforts at winning over new broadband customers have been waning as of late.  One of the primary issues Windstream faces is the cable industry’s effective portrayal of DSL as “yesterday’s” technology, incapable of delivering the broadband speeds consumers crave.

Instead of investing in improved broadband speeds for everyone, Windstream spends its time and efforts trying to convince most customers they don’t need the faster speeds being pitched by most cable companies in the first place.

Windstream tries to convince customers they can make do with less speed (as low as 1.5Mbps), and there is no difference in speed between different providers — both questionable assertions.  (4 minutes)

The COO says 3Mbps is Windstream's biggest seller -- their website says something else.

Windstream chief operating officer Brent Whittington says his customers “don’t want to pay for incremental speed,” but is expanding their capacity to offer somewhat faster speeds.

“We still see that long term as [an increased revenue opportunity] because we know the demand is going to be there,” Whittington told investors.  “As we’ve rolled it out currently, it’s largely to — from a marketing benefits standpoint to talk about our competitiveness relative to our cable competition, but [consumers] are largely buying at 3Mbps.”

Either Whittington is mistaken, or Windstream’s website is, because it promotes the company’s 6Mbps $44.99 option as its “top seller.”  Many of Windstream’s cable competitors charge less for almost twice the speed, which may be another reason why Windstream’s broadband signup numbers are lagging behind.

Finding More Revenue: Universal Service Fund Reform & Business Services

Among the most important components of Windstream’s strategy for future growth are reform efforts underway in Washington to overhaul the Universal Service Fund.  Rural, independent phone companies like Windstream have reaped the rewards of this subsidy for years in its rural service areas.  But now Washington wants to transform the program away from simply underwriting rural landline phone service and redirect revenues to enhancing broadband access in areas too unprofitable to service today.

Windstream sees the reform as a positive development.

“It focuses USF on high-cost areas,” said Windstream CEO Jeff Gardner. “If you were a customer in a rural area of Windstream versus a customer in a rural area of a small carrier, your subsidy would much be higher, and we would get very little USF for that going forward. In this proposal, USF is really targeted towards those high-cost areas, so we kind of deal with this issue that we refer to as the rural-rural divide.”

Gardner says USF reform will end disparity of access.

“All rural customers are going to have the opportunity to get broadband out to them under this plan,” he said. The more customers paying monthly service fees, the higher the company’s revenues, assuming nothing else changes.

While redirected subsidies may help rural broadband customers, Windstream’s capital investments in expanding their network are going primarily to benefit their business clients, not consumers.

“On the small business side, our service there is very superior to our cable competitors,” said Windstream’s chief financial officer Anthony Thomas. “We’ve made investments in our network to offer VDSL and higher-speed data services. That’s going to be directed predominately toward those small business customers.”

Whittington added most of the company’s efforts at deploying VDSL technology are focused on the company’s small business segment to bring faster speeds to commercial customers.  For consumers, Windstream’s efforts are targeted primarily at keeping up with usage demands.

“Like a lot of folks in the industry, we’ve definitely seen increases in network traffic really due to video consumption,” Whittington said. “No question Netflix and other related type services are driving some of that demand. We continue to invest in broadband transport like we have in years past. And the good thing with a lot of things we’ve been doing from just a network perspective like rolling out as I mentioned before, VDSL technology in our larger markets. That’s really all about fiber deployment, which helps solve some of those transport issues. So we feel like we’ve been in good shape there, but it’s certainly something we’ve been very focused on operationally so our broadband customers don’t see a degradation in the quality of their experience.”

Britt

On this morning’s conference call for investors, Wall Street continued to pound Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt about when the company would introduce an Internet Overcharging scheme for broadband customers in the form of so-called “usage based billing.”

This quarter, the pressure came from Deutsche Bank’s Doug Mitchelson, who used the occasion to remind Britt he called usage pricing “inevitable” and wanted to know when the company was going to get the ball rolling on the pricing scheme.

Britt was unprepared to answer, other than to make comparisons about his “inevitable” remark with wireless carriers, who have said the same thing about the end of unlimited use plans in wireless, a different technology.

After following Britt’s public statements for more than two years about this subject, we detected a moderating view.  Britt told investors he believes “there should remain an unlimited plan for those who want to buy that,” and suggested Time Warner Cable might not be interested in applying usage pricing on every level of its broadband service.  That could be good news, so long as Britt doesn’t believe the price of “unlimited” should be the $150 a month the company proposed in 2009.

“We’re more focused on affordability and lower income people who might be light users and might seek to pay less because they use less,” Britt said. “That’s a much better context than the usual ‘oh those people using all the bandwidth’ and caps and all that stuff.”

Britt added he doesn’t anticipate having caps across the board.

Mitchelson explained in a follow-up question why Wall Street is interested in the adoption of usage pricing – an increase in “ARPU growth” — the average revenue earned from each broadband customer in the form of more expensive usage plans.

Britt acknowledges what Stop the Cap! has predicted all along — ARPU growth can be realized instead from subscribers upgrading to faster speed tiers, which carry higher costs.  Britt told Mitchelson he, and other investors, can get the ARPU growth they crave by looking at those numbers instead of earnings from usage based pricing.

How long before Wall Street demands both speed-related ARPU growth and extra earnings from usage pricing is an open question, but Britt’s latest remarks represent a significant shift in attitude about pricing broadband, potentially because the company has a new found appreciation for the limited capability of customers to keep opening their wallets to pay higher and higher cable bills.  That was clearly in evidence as the company tried to explain another quarter of declining cable TV customers, many forced out of the service because of its high cost.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt answers a question about usage-based pricing from Deutsche Bank’s Doug Mitchelson, just one of a parade of Wall Street banks pushing broadband providers to adopt Internet Overcharging to increase profits. July 28, 2011. (2 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Welcome to the unemployment network.

Cisco announced this week the imminent layoff of some 6,500 of its employees in a desperate bid to boost the company’s stock price and get back on the good side of Wall Street, angered by a series of acquisition blunders by the company’s management and a growing loss of confidence in the future of some of the company’s legacy broadband products.

The cuts at Cisco, which include 2,100 employees who took a voluntary early-retirement program, were announced July 18th, with tepid applause from many investors who don’t believe the company slashed nearly enough positions to get the company’s cash on hand up (although it currently amounts to nearly $30 billion, much of it stashed in overseas accounts).  They wanted at least 10,000 members of Cisco’s “human network” to be cashiered.

While thousands of employees pay the ultimate price for the company’s low stock price, the executives that steered Cisco’s enormous business networking ship onto the rocks are still firmly at the helm.  In fact, Cisco CEO John Chambers received compensation valued at $18.9 million in fiscal 2010, according to documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. His total package is up 33% from 2009, when he received compensation valued at $14.2 million.  That’s quite a reward for what Wall Street perceives as utter failure.

Under Chambers’ watch, Cisco overspent top dollar for Pure Digital Technologies, the San Francisco company responsible for the Flip handheld video camera.  You know, the one now discontinued by Cisco less than two years after acquiring the company for $590 million (and up to $15 million in retention bonuses for key executives.)  In fact, Cisco may still be paying off a deal for a product consumers have now long-since forgotten.

Chambers (AP)

Currently, there is no indication Chambers will be significantly punished for the various blunders under his watch.  But his latest decision to jettison thousands of workers has thrown a high-pressure, well-funded lobbying campaign on behalf of large corporations trying to get a tax break repatriating billions stashed in overseas bank accounts, into chaos.

Cisco’s CEO was among the loudest supporters of the tax slash for corporate entities who have parked much of their free cash overseas to avoid Uncle Sam’s tax bite.  Chambers has publicly said he wants to bring $30 billion in company profits back to the States, but only if he can do so at a discount.  Ironically, Chambers promoted the tax holiday as a job creator, claiming Cisco would add as much as 10 percent to his workforce if the deal was approved.

That promise doesn’t mean much after this week’s employee clear-cutting by the networking company.

It’s certainly upsetting the lobbying apple cart in Washington, potentially ruining the Money Party for other super-sized corporations looking for a tax break handout.

Companies like Duke Energy said the $1.3 billion it wants to repatriate to the U.S. would create 15,000 to 20,000 jobs.  But many Democrats remain skeptical the promised jobs will ever materialize.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett from Texas notes we’ve been here before.  Back in 2004, HP got a tax break to bring back almost $15 billion with the promise the company would create jobs.  Instead, it slashed its workforce by 14,500 employees in a year.

“As a leading proponent of this corporate tax giveaway, Cisco is announcing massive layoffs instead of investing in American job creation with the billions it already has available,” Doggett said. “Once again, it is clear that large multinational corporations have no intention of using any repatriation tax windfall to create jobs.”

This left the WinAmerica Campaign, a corporate-funded group promoting the tax cut, scrambling to deliver an adjusted message to Congress.

Oops... we need a new message.

Doug Thornell, a spokesman for the group, told Bloomberg News the effort “isn’t about just one company.”

“It’s about the benefit to the broader economy,” he said. “It’s whether we continue a failed policy that lets a trillion dollars languish overseas when our economy desperately needs the help.”

With up to 6,500 former employees about to join unemployment lines, Cisco isn’t doing much to help, especially when those responsible are not held accountable for the mistakes that left the company in its ultimate predicament.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Henderson Says Job Cuts Not Enough for Cisco’s Problems 7-18-11.mp4[/flv]

Bloomberg News talks to a Wall Street analyst who doesn’t think Cisco has cut nearly enough jobs to get the company worthwhile for investors again.  (5 minutes)