Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Monday February 09 2015, @01:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the all-the-traffic-will-bear dept.

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?"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Monday February 09 2015, @10:37PM

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 09 2015, @10:37PM (#142894) Journal

    More to the point, why can't the public utilities commissions or FCC step in to demand lower prices?

    Its already in the works, The FCC is pushing for Title II common carrier status for ISPs.

    Why? Net Neutrality, bundled with the fact that in most places these big ISPs have a defacto monopoly.
    In my town I have a choice of Comcast (wired all over town) or horribly slow ADSL in limited areas.

    We don't generally limit profits unless there is some sort of unfair market advantage that works to prevents competition.

    Its finally dawned on people that the vast majority of people in the US DON'T have a choice of internet providers.
    There are at least three different TV providers.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4