oss income, and net income is shown as a specified number in the table. As you can see, the company is not EBITDA positive until the sixth year, the income does not kick in until the same year-in practice, it could have taken even longer-and it is always below the EBITDA value. Because the company is operating at a loss, a debt bottom line is building. In this Table 1-7 Profile of a Hypothetical, Typical xLEC Cumulative Operations (assumes Valuation Valuation Expenses EBITDA it's carried, Valvation Valuation 20 Times 20 Times Revenue (gross not paid 5 Times 15 Times Net Minus Revenue inclusive) income) Income Revenue EBITDA Income Gross ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) -$138 -$198 -$176 -$374 $1,620 -$117 -$491 $2,916 -$491 $4,666 $1,306 $1,100 -$491 $6,532 $3,096 $2,064 $1,573 $1,698 $1,200 -$491 $8,491 $7,474 $4,983 $4,492 Advances and Opportunities in Next-Generation SONET simplification, we assume that the debt is carried and is not offset with income from the net income line. In fact, it was the accumulated debt of many LECs and fiber IXCs that put an unhealthy percentage of them in Chapter 7/11 mode in the recent past. Now comes the punch line of Table 1-7. This table shows a number of ways of calculating company valuation, which drives company stock value (which is assumed to be company valuation divided by the number of issued common shares). As can be seen, many entries in these columns are zeros or nearly zero values. It used to be that the valuation was 10 or 20 times the forward revenues (for example, the acquisition by AT&T of Teleport Com- munications Group [TCG] for $12 billion, whereas TCG's yearly revenues were around $600 million). That figure has now come down quite a bit to 3 times the revenues for a company with progressive services (maybe 10 times in rare cases), 3 times the revenues for a company with mediocre ser- vices, and 0.5 to 1 times the forward revenues for an ISP. However, the mar- ket is imposing an even ti