That is tinfoil hat stuff. The real questions you need to ask are:
Oh please, it's not "tinfoil hat" stuff - it's far, far simpler than that: It's just plain business. It's much simpler than you think:
- Examine the costs and see what course of action leads to the highest profits
- Assume that a company will never do something that causes it to lose more money, unless it's to gain some future advantage
Just do the math, and watch. It's not a "conspiracy theory" - grow up, that's just silly. Actually READ my post before answering, and try understand it. Just DO THE MATH, pretend you own the business, and ask yourself what would you do. Companies can and frequently DO leave massive investments under-used if it is not more profitable to make use of them. You might think this is shocking and counterintuitive, but one of the FIRST rules you learn in business is don't chase good money after bad - i.e. never let a sunk cost decide future decisions. Examples: After the Dot-com bubble, a massive over-investment in cable led to many companies leaving massive under-ocean fiber cables in the developed world simply lying unused, waiting for demand to pick up again. Crack open a history book. See, an under-ocean cable has a high capex cost, but a very low comparative maintenance cost. Another example: US banks are sitting on foreclosed stock of approximately 7 million homes that they DO NOT WANT to trickle onto the market, because there is already abundant oversupply and dropping prices, and THE MATH shows that if prices fall much further, too many more homeowners will be left in greater negative equity and simply stop paying their monthlies (in the US you can do that), leading to further liquidity problems for the banks --- therefore they sit on repo'd stock instead of selling it. This is not "conspiracy theories", what silliness, it's just plain math.
Every single thing I pointed out in my post is verifiable FACT. So instead of making ad hominem attacks, you could try disprove my actual facts and argument.
What is the service level agreement on EASSY as compared to Seacom?
This is a circular argument! It doesn't even make sense. The 'service level agreement' is set by those very companies who own the cable - the investors - MTN, Vodacom, Telkom. It is up to them to come up with the conditions - the service level agreement didn't fall out the sky. The fact that you make such an argument proves you haven't even read my post properly, and don't understand it. Perhaps you should first look up words like "revenue", and understand what I wrote, before making counterarguments that don't even make sense. If you don't understand my post, sorry, but don't assume it's because it doesn't make sense.
Funny thing is, you are the one who originally claimed to know the answer, yet you haven't backed it up with any facts, and yet your own original answers actually perfectly line up with what I was saying. The fact that you gave such extremely short answers though is because you know you don't know the actual answer.
Tick=Tik ?