with the telecom bubble that first supported and then destroyed the CLECs and the long-distance carriers. The total market value of Nortel Table 10-1. Revenue Growth in Three Communications Sectors, 1996-2003a Average annual growth (percent) Sector 1996-03 2000-03 Wire-based telecommunications carriers End-user revenues 151.5 158.3 167.0 171.0 171.7 167.6 157.4 149.2 -0.22 -4.68 Revenues/line -2.15 -3.85 Wireless carriers Revenues 18.74 17.07 Revenues/subscriber -0.38 Cable television companies Revenues Revenues/subscriber Sources: Wire-based telecommunications carriers: FCC, Telecommunications Industry Revenues, annual editions; wireless telecommunications carriers: CTIA, Semi-Annual Wireless Industry Survey, downloaded from www.wow-com.com/industry/stats/surveys/; cable television: NCTA, Industry Overview, downloaded from www.ncta.com/docs/pagecontent.cfm?pageID=86. a. Revenues in billions of dollars/year; revenue per subscriber or per line in dollars/year. A Look Back and a Look Forward Figure 10-1. Market Value of the Two Major North American Telecom Equipment Suppliers, Selected Years Billions of U.S. dollars Lucent Nortel December 1996 December 1999 June 2004 Source: Yahoo finance. and Lucent soared during the "bubble," but by the end of 2003, their value had fallen to less than two-thirds of their value at the end of 1996. The stock market value of these two erstwhile titans has declined by more than one-half since the end of 1996. By contrast, the cable companies, wireless carriers, and incumbent local telephone carriers remained quite healthy even after the bubble burst. As figure 10-2 shows, their market values per subscriber or subscriber line changed remarkably little over the 1996-2003 period. The cable compa- nies' value per subscriber has risen sharply since 1996, while the large incumbent local (Bell) carriers' value per line has risen only marginally. Only the wireless carriers, among the obvious survivors, have suffered a reduction in value per subscriber, but they have enjoyed phenomenal growth