SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Huffington Post reports
In our Petition for Investigation of Time Warner Cable (TWC) and Comcast, we point out that TWC's High-Speed Internet service has a 97 percent profit margin and a number of people asked how that statistic was derived. Simple. Time Warner Cable provides the information, (with some caveats).
Below is the actual financial information excerpted from the Time Warner Cable, 2013 SEC-filed annual report. (Please note that this same mathematics is also used by Comcast and probably Verizon and AT&T, though they do not explicitly detail their financials in this way.)
Moreover, we need to put this financial information in context to what customers are paying, and more specifically with the Time Warner Cable Triple Play bill that's been featured in previous articles.
[...]
Net Neutrality, Competition, and Fees to Competitors
In the current FCC proceeding about Open Internet, commonly known as "Net Neutrality", one of the issues surrounds what the competitors and content providers, such as Netflix, are paying to connect to the cable networks. On the other side, the 'slow-lane-fast-lane' discussion is all about charging end-user customers more or getting your service slowed down in some way.
To put it bluntly, with a 97 percent profit margin for High-Speed Internet, TWC has given its own services 'priority' favoritism, a sweet-heart deal,--call it what you want--but any other company would never, ever [be allowed to pay just] $1.32 a month to use the TWC networks to offer competitive High-Speed Internet, but this is what it costs Time Warner Cable's ISP, the part of the company offering the Internet and broadband service, to offer end users High-Speed Internet service. Competitors would most likely have to pay about 50 percent or more of the 'retail' average price of $43.92 to offer their service as a competitor.
If customers have been 'defacto' investors, paying an extra $5.00 a month since 2001 under the "Social Contract" to fund upgrades of the cable networks for High-Speed Internet, why shouldn't these networks be open so we can choose who offers us Internet or cable service over these wires?"
(Score: 4, Disagree) by jmorris on Monday February 09 2015, @06:14PM
As usual our Party minder is here to advance the Great Leader's latest inititive. And again, as usual they are a lie. They don't lie, they ARE a lie. That and demonstrate that progs are both illiterate and innumerate.
Start with the money shot. It shows OPERATIONS expenses only. Video programming has direct per subscriber costs for each channel subscribed. Phone has direct expenses associated with having a number in service. As we all (or should) know Internet service has little to none of that. I'm not even sure what the $175M they show there represents, it should be a bit fat goose egg since they shouldn't even be paying for their upstream at their size; they should be able to directly peer. Don't believe me, go actually READ the 10-K linked above. Employee expense is even a different line item on that chart and we all know tech support isn't free.
Much of these companies expense isn't operations of that sort. Go look at their total residential revenue of 18,402(millions) and see that only 5,822 was from data. Their entire network is pretty much IP based or will soon be so it makes sense to sorta split the cost of building and running it. 3,198 in direct CapEx (CPE equip, lines, infrastructure, etc.), 15,056 in Plant & equipment, service on 25,052 in debt, etc.
No, as usual the numbers thrown around to justify more government are bogus but that is just a smokescreen anyway. There ARE problems with the duopoly of Cable/Telco having an iron grip on the Internet. That problem is a creation of government regulation and like every other time the Progs plans fail the solution offered is always 'more cowbell.' If a little regulation and oligarchy doesn't fix a problem, double down.
The solution is fairly obvious. If government granted monopolies are a problem, fix that by minimizing the damage they can cause by virtue of being integrated into larger entities. Break up the phone and cable companies again, but don't be stupid like last time. The last mile is a natural monopoly so accept that and see where that leads. Create new government regulated monopolies in possession of the last mile, regulated as utilities and running on the utility investment model of assured dividends but little growth or hope of massive stock appreciation. The rest of the phone and cable co would be a totally unregulated entity buying access to the last mile and offering services atop it at whatever the market will bear for rates and services. The key being they buy access to the last mile at a regulated price that keeps the monopoly in business, upgrading and paying dividends but it is the exact same price offered to ANY company wishing to sell end customer services atop the infrastructure.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @09:13PM
The last mile is a natural monopoly
In Wilson, NC and in Chattanooga, TN, they have a public (taxpayer-owned) ISP.
Both are superior to what was being offered by the Capitalists at the time they were built.
It would be interesting to hear you discuss your ideas with someone from one of those cities as you discover how well (gasp!) Socialism works for them.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09 2015, @11:20PM
As a resident of chattanooga, I wish they would sell access to other ISPs. I mean the service is fine so far, but what if they decide to knuckle under to an extra-legal MAFIAA request to pull my access? I will be stranded. As it is now, my right to internet access exists only at their pleasure. If they decide they don't like me, best case I spend thousands going to court to get it back.