AT&T Weighs In On Net Neutrality
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 110
- Views 7K
- Status
http://ir.timewarnercable.com/files/2014 Earnings/3Q14/aQ3-2014-TWC-Earnings-Release-FINAL_v001_a0q10j.pdf
Last quarters TWC earnings:
Cable TV: page 3 "programming and content charges" 1.3 billion. Page 4 revenue 2.5 billion, so about 1.2 billion before other expenses
Internet: Page 3 "technical operating", even though the same pipeline carries TV & phone, give it all to internet at 401 million, and revenue of 1.6 billion yielding 1.2 billion
Page 7 net income 527 million for the quarter.
Last Netflix earnings: http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...9d4a5953a6a5/Q3_14_Letter_to_shareholders.pdf
Hmm net income $32 million... One cable company made 16x Netflix's income... Even if you cut the TWC income in half since half was from internet it is still 8x.
Another way to state it TWC in one quarter made more money than Netflix makes in a year or 2.
The primary function of a business is to turn a profit for it's owners and/or investors.
I am not seeing a problem here.
And how much internet bandwidth does Google use? Netflix is the one they all complain about since it uses the most bandwidth. Yes, Google has youtube which uses a lot of bandwidth, but a fraction of netflix. Google makes money from banner ads, which are really a small amount of data.
It was a counter to Juan's assertion that the data hogs of the internet like Netflix were making all the money off the back of the poor cable operator barely making a living as overwhelming waves of data destroy their networks.
Chill out fanboy I wasn't talking about you, you don't have to get offensive for giving a opinion
plus I ain't the only one that feel that way.
Probably sounded good when he said it and that is all that matters. Facts be damned.
Like the other guy who says:
"there is no proof they are throttling" / Umm yeah check the thread with the video proof
"yeah well, umm they put the lines in so its theirs and they can do what they want" / Yeah ok, don't mention the 200b they got and did nothing with and the other few billion they get every year from fees that get put right in their pockets. Lets not mention the monopolistic nature of the business and the fact that the government subsidized the crap out of running all those lines.
"umm free market, 'Meric yeah!" / Except its not a free market and in many markets its a monopoly with only a single dominate provider. Its also not a free market when they can throttle competition at their whim which they have already done. Free market breaks down when you don't have any competition nor can new competition come in because they can't get the rights to lay their own fiber / cable. You can look at how Google fiber has been rejected by many areas because the companies there don't want to have to compete. That isn't a free market. Where they were allowed in guess what? Prices fell and the companies that were there are still making profit and doing just fine.
"yeah but Netflix doesn't pay anything" / Do you really think that Netflix provides their service without an ISP and pays nothing? You must be stupid.
"well heavy users!" / Except this isn't about heavy users and that has been said about 10x just in the thread
"Yeah well they should be able to charge people for their use" / Sure they can, nothing changes that, they just can't screw with the traffic as it comes to you. That is the big deal. Its like At&T preventing calls from MA to FL because Verizon is competition. Pay up or your calls won't go through. That wouldn't fly would it?
I'll end with these comments:
1. The biggest issue people have is with Net Neutrality is Obama. Obama said it so it must be bad and you can see people spouting the talking points without any thought what so ever as to what they actually mean or if they are true. Easier to say "its a bunch of BS" instead of doing a little research.
2. Your cable provider shouldn't be able to modify the signal in any way. That is what net neutrality is about and that is what designating them a utility means. No more, no less.
3. If you think that internet is not one of the most important utilities next to water and electric then you're not paying attention. Its ridiculous to say otherwise as people simply will not live without it now that they have it.
4. I'm certainly not anti company. However these companies (providers) have many built in advantages already. They do NOT need anymore.
5. I'm sure if Directv on demand gets shown to be throttled or if the website got blocked or was super slow on purpose because it is mostly about DBS providers by Comcast people would be up in arms.
What I find hilarious about the whole argument that the phone companies have is that Comcast (of all the evil companies) and most all major cable companies strung fiber up along their entire networks YEARS AGO. Comcast bought up AT&T Broadband in late 2002, and then immediately after for most of 2003 into 2004 had trucks everywhere in the streets as they were putting up fiber -- consequently you can now get a 50 meg Comcast connection practically anywhere in their footprint for $60 per month, and 100+ megs if you pony up for it -- they just doubled it from 25 megs at that price point, and now they are in trials in some markets of making 100 megs the 60 buck plan and 200 megs the expensive one.
The phone companies have wider networks, better facilities, better rights-of-way, more revenue (especially from all the business customers -- we pay over a grand a month for Metro Ethernet at work -- I somehow doubt the phone company isn't making a pretty penny) and could bring fiber to the curb (it doesn't HAVE to be to the premises -- although Verizon proved that they can actually pull that off and the results are pretty sweet) if they wanted to the same way the cable guys have -- but they'd rather whine about how providing a basic service they way they made their billions off phone service just doesn't bring them enough money.
As much as I love to hate on Comcast, their internet service is pretty good considering the competition I have -- which is Centurylink, who loves to send me fliers saying that 40 meg internet is available for $29.99 for the first year -- except it's actually only 1.5 megs here, it tops out at 8 megs in the middle of the city (Olympia, WA), and the only 20 and 40 meg connections to be had are in the surrounding suburbs of Seattle and parts of Tacoma -- their latest marketing scheme on radio and TV is that they offer GIGABIT internet -- and plaster advertising about it everywhere... which would be cool, except it's basically only in limited neighborhoods near downtown Seattle, even less available than their 20 and 40 meg VDSL... but from hearing and seeing the ads you'd think it's practically everywhere. Really the only way to get "decent" phone-system based internet here is if you were lucky enough to be in a GTE area... Verizon picked them up, really did a good job pushing FIOS out to most of the area -- but then sold off all their markets in the NW to Frontier Communications. In other words you now have a mid-sized ISP who owns an amazing network -- it's like having all the benefits of Verizon's massive wallet, without having to deal with Verizon.
So I have absolutely no love for phone companies... I have very little love for Comcast, but at least they provide me with a reasonable connection -- and lately they've gotten MUCH better about not dropping down considerably during prime time (I get my full 50 megs now, and drop to around 30 during heavily congested times... it's much better than when it was supposed to be around 25 megs but peaked at 14 and dropped as low as 2). But AT&T in particular has absolutely no excuse -- from what I understand UVerse is a network that was done on the cheap, has limited bandwidth for multiple DVRs and shares the TV bandwidth with the internet. At least Verizon tried with FIOS, and did their fiber network right the first time... as for CenturyLink, they are absolutely worthless to me -- except I can call up Comcast like clockwork and say "CenturyLink sent me a flier that says 40 meg service is now in my area" and I get $15 bucks off for 6 months...
The internet is a UTILITY just like phone service. No one can say at this day and age that it isn't -- it should be regulated the same way phone service is. Tack on $5 for a "universal broadband service charge" the same way the phone service has, and require that at least the minimum standard of "broadband" (I think it's 6 megs now) across the entire network -- which means even if you live in the middle of nowhere you'll still get 6 megs -- in the areas where they have to compete with cable (who gets franchise fees) that's the incentive to provide faster service. Whoever it was at the FCC that let them change internet service from "common carrier" to "information service" was an idiot.
I'm not a huge "government regulation" type of guy either -- but even I can see that the internet is right up there with phone service as far as an essential utility. In fact since you can actually use the internet as phone service without actually subscribing to phone service means it might even be a little more useful and essential than phone service at this point. I'm all for a USF fee for the internet -- the phone companies LOVE their USF money because even though it's a large capex up front, it's money they get from everyone continually... with everyone dropping their landlines, it's a great way to ensure they continue to get their USF money -- and that (selfishly) I can find a nice place in the country where I would actually have a reasonably priced option and not have to choose between satellite internet (never again) or dropping $250 a month on a T1 line that, although only 1.5 megs would be rock solid (I'd take the T1). When real estate agents are now being asked "What sort of internet can I get out here?" (and it's not just I who ask this question) I'd say you've crossed into "essential utility" territory...
The phone companies have wider networks, better facilities, better rights-of-way, more revenue (especially from all the business customers -- we pay over a grand a month for Metro Ethernet at work -- I somehow doubt the phone company isn't making a pretty penny) and could bring fiber to the curb (it doesn't HAVE to be to the premises -- although Verizon proved that they can actually pull that off and the results are pretty sweet) if they wanted to the same way the cable guys have -- but they'd rather whine about how providing a basic service they way they made their billions off phone service just doesn't bring them enough money.
As much as I love to hate on Comcast, their internet service is pretty good considering the competition I have -- which is Centurylink, who loves to send me fliers saying that 40 meg internet is available for $29.99 for the first year -- except it's actually only 1.5 megs here, it tops out at 8 megs in the middle of the city (Olympia, WA), and the only 20 and 40 meg connections to be had are in the surrounding suburbs of Seattle and parts of Tacoma -- their latest marketing scheme on radio and TV is that they offer GIGABIT internet -- and plaster advertising about it everywhere... which would be cool, except it's basically only in limited neighborhoods near downtown Seattle, even less available than their 20 and 40 meg VDSL... but from hearing and seeing the ads you'd think it's practically everywhere. Really the only way to get "decent" phone-system based internet here is if you were lucky enough to be in a GTE area... Verizon picked them up, really did a good job pushing FIOS out to most of the area -- but then sold off all their markets in the NW to Frontier Communications. In other words you now have a mid-sized ISP who owns an amazing network -- it's like having all the benefits of Verizon's massive wallet, without having to deal with Verizon.
So I have absolutely no love for phone companies... I have very little love for Comcast, but at least they provide me with a reasonable connection -- and lately they've gotten MUCH better about not dropping down considerably during prime time (I get my full 50 megs now, and drop to around 30 during heavily congested times... it's much better than when it was supposed to be around 25 megs but peaked at 14 and dropped as low as 2). But AT&T in particular has absolutely no excuse -- from what I understand UVerse is a network that was done on the cheap, has limited bandwidth for multiple DVRs and shares the TV bandwidth with the internet. At least Verizon tried with FIOS, and did their fiber network right the first time... as for CenturyLink, they are absolutely worthless to me -- except I can call up Comcast like clockwork and say "CenturyLink sent me a flier that says 40 meg service is now in my area" and I get $15 bucks off for 6 months...
The internet is a UTILITY just like phone service. No one can say at this day and age that it isn't -- it should be regulated the same way phone service is. Tack on $5 for a "universal broadband service charge" the same way the phone service has, and require that at least the minimum standard of "broadband" (I think it's 6 megs now) across the entire network -- which means even if you live in the middle of nowhere you'll still get 6 megs -- in the areas where they have to compete with cable (who gets franchise fees) that's the incentive to provide faster service. Whoever it was at the FCC that let them change internet service from "common carrier" to "information service" was an idiot.
I'm not a huge "government regulation" type of guy either -- but even I can see that the internet is right up there with phone service as far as an essential utility. In fact since you can actually use the internet as phone service without actually subscribing to phone service means it might even be a little more useful and essential than phone service at this point. I'm all for a USF fee for the internet -- the phone companies LOVE their USF money because even though it's a large capex up front, it's money they get from everyone continually... with everyone dropping their landlines, it's a great way to ensure they continue to get their USF money -- and that (selfishly) I can find a nice place in the country where I would actually have a reasonably priced option and not have to choose between satellite internet (never again) or dropping $250 a month on a T1 line that, although only 1.5 megs would be rock solid (I'd take the T1). When real estate agents are now being asked "What sort of internet can I get out here?" (and it's not just I who ask this question) I'd say you've crossed into "essential utility" territory...
Last edited:
ATT is catching even more attention from the regulators now because it has stopped expanding fiber due to neutrality becoming an issue.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...ternet-nationwide-rollout-will-be-delayed.htm
Additionally, the FCC asked whether the investment model of AT&T now shows that the deployment of fiber networks is unprofitable, or if the company is expecting it to become unprofitable after its purchase of DirecTV.
So with ATT stalling they may have just killed the Directtv deal by being greedy.
If this happens it will be great.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...ternet-nationwide-rollout-will-be-delayed.htm
Additionally, the FCC asked whether the investment model of AT&T now shows that the deployment of fiber networks is unprofitable, or if the company is expecting it to become unprofitable after its purchase of DirecTV.
So with ATT stalling they may have just killed the Directtv deal by being greedy.
If this happens it will be great.
What's getting lost in all this is that there are large areas of the country that have no access to wired broadband to begin with. This map is from the US Commerce Dept. Blue is wired broadband.
I definitely don't want this acquisition with AT&T
hope FCC kills this deal, Let them swim in their own pool of greediness
I would rather have T-Mobile even though Dish is watching for the potention deal with Sprint, and see if it fails
hope FCC kills this deal, Let them swim in their own pool of greediness
I would rather have T-Mobile even though Dish is watching for the potention deal with Sprint, and see if it fails
That is total bull in my area. Not only does Suddenlink tier the speed they also cap the bandwidth. Both A.T. & T. cap it to 250Gb. If you go over you pay additional fees. The only hi speed net(above 6 Mb) on my side of town. U-verse stops about a block away from me. On the S side of the city they have 3 ISP's that are faster than 6Mb. So I'm stuck with cable unless I want to drag to below 6Mb. Also Suckenlink has had tiers for many years. But the cap went up in Dec w/no warning until the month before it took place. I got cable and was told that there was no cap. So I'm forced to pay more for the server that I have. I can't afford to have a remote location for my server as I'm not exchanging any info w/anyone. Just research data coming in to it. The reliability at times has been below par as well. I don't have a problem w/ paying for being allowed to receive more in a month. I do have a real problem w/the speed costing more. BTW I have never streamed on this system it just isn't reliable enough. Downloading is the only thing I have been able to rely on.
It is good to see the FCC calling AT&T's bluff and requiring them to turn over all the documentation as to their gigabit plans. They may have announce over 100 cities to get 1 gigabit service, but what % of customers in those announced markets would actually see 1 gb/s service? Was it really all just a press release to get the AT&T/DIRECTV merger approved? Were they really going to do 2 million households?
If you or anyone else believes government regulation of the internet is going to work out well for consumers and providers, you only need to look back at everything else government gets involved in.
If what the conspiracy theorists say is true, that the providers are throttling Netflix and others, then they can negotiate an agreement with the ISP's.
What $200 billion they did nothing with?.....Are you implying that the providers build the physical plant and set the equipment and that's it?
Admittedly, the system does indeed give the appearance of a local monopoly. But in actuality, it isn't.
Right here where I live.
Video: Dish, Directv, Time Warner Cable
Phone.....Windstream, TWC, any number of VoIP providers
Internet: TimeWarner, Windstream, Hughesnet
In the next county to my east, add AT&T Uverse...
Cable and phone companies are not going to cross paths with each other. It's financially unwise.
Do you believe government intervention is going to change that?
If you could provide links to examples where Google fiber has been "rejected" from a certain area, I'd be willing to read the story.
"Stupid"? Did I insult you? Was that really necessary?
FYI, Netflix has negotiated with at least one provider and is paying a fee. That should be across the board. Use it. Pay for it.
Look, there's no sense going thru this over and again.
You look to government as a savior. You think government is going to make everything better.
I disagree. The less intrusive government the better. I see government screwing up the internet 6 days a week and twice on Sunday.
Last point.....No matter what anyone may believe, this is not about Obama. Using "Obama" is a convenient crutch. It's crap.
And again, another post that fails to address the fact that it is being paid for... By the customers of Comcast and the other ISPs. I am paying for every bit of data I request. Comcast has agreed to this payment by offering me their service and accepting my money. What they want and what you seem to be in favor of is for them to be able to charge twice for each bit of data. It would be like the post office charging both the sender and the recipient for transporting a letter. It's nonsensical and just a $$$$ grab.
Your area. Ok I can see issues there.
Answer this question...Government intervention will do what for me( you)?
Lets just say for a moment the FCC moves forward with Title II. The internet becomes a regulated common carrier. Then what? Without going into a long wish list of things you'd like to see( what you or I want is irrelevant), offer some insight as to what you believe will be the result of a regulated internet.
I know my view. I think prices will rise, providers will refuse to invest anymore than exactly the federally mandated minimums which means copper.
Rural areas will see little if any benefit because the telcos will claim there is already copper plant by which these areas can recieve internet service.
The prices will rise because the government will mandate that those areas of communities currently unserved by fiber, will get fiber and because the business generated will be minimal, the providers will demand as a trade off, some kind of fee attached to all their existing customer's bills ( internet welfare tax)
I am telling you if the government gets their paws on this they will make a big mess out of it and our prices will skyrocket.
- Status
