FCC proposes internet will be regulated as a utility

[jesmu84]

Wow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/technology/in-net-neutrality-push-fcc-is-expected-to-propose-regulating-the-internet-as-a-utility.html?_r=0

[brandx]

Well, in a battle pitting Google, Netflix, Amazon, etc. vs. Comcast, TWC, ATT, etc., it's pretty easy to pick a side.

Preferably, we wouldn't need to pick one side and could have stayed with the status quo, but the providers want to be the ones regulating the Internet - and that may be the only thing worse than what is being proposed.

It's also a bit misleading to say that it is just the big boys going against the providers, however. Their support is widespread among smaller entities, too.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why is this a wow?  I told you this back in October and November.  Incredibly stupidity, but also predicted the stupidy would happen.  Shouldn't shock anyone.

[mu_hilltopper]

A bit OT, but curious your comments on this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cables-97-pro_b_6591916.html

Those profit margins .. wow.  Wrong?

[ChicosBailBonds]

A bit OT, but curious your comments on this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cables-97-pro_b_6591916.html

Those profit margins .. wow.  Wrong?

On broadband...the ones I've seen are north of 75%, so not totally surprising but I would think 97% sounds high....I looked at their math, but I don't think they are pulling in all the costs or TWC isn't bucketing them correctly.  IMO, but that's just a guess.  Remember that the data and video use the same cable.  I wonder if they are putting much of the delivery cost on the video side and not burdeoning some of it on the data side?

Profit margins on video are much smaller and getting smaller year after year.  Notice with TWC they went from 60% to 55%....but even that I question to some extent. It may be that the video "business" is getting that much profit margin, but that's not the profit margin generated solely from video packages, which is much smaller.  The conglomerates like Disney, Viacom, HBO, etc, have put the screws so hard on distributors that the margins on the actual programming packages has shrunk a ton in the last 5 years.  So companies have had to fine other ways to make money that they do NOT have to share with those conglomerates.  Thus your hardware fees, etc.

This is why I laugh when people scream about their cable bill but they don't seem to have much of an issue for their Starbucks, their wireless bill, their internet bill....all of which have margins that exceed their television bill.  If people feel gouged, that's where they should be venting their anger.

[mu_hilltopper]

I'm still trying to understand the enormous profit margin numbers.  I mean .. anything north of 50% is unbelievable.

Then you look at a chart like this:  http://ycharts.com/companies/TWC/profit_margin

.. that has their overall margin at 10-15% which would be believable. 

I must not be understanding these stats correctly .. or calling the 50+ numbers "profit margins" is entirely bogus as a calculation of, you know, profit margins ...?

[chapman]

I must not be understanding these stats correctly .. or calling the 50+ numbers "profit margins" is entirely bogus as a calculation of, you know, profit margins ...?

That.  "Operating margin" or "product margin" is probably a better term, depending on what they're expensing in that number.  While not the best comparison, if would be like calling out McDonald's for a 95% "profit margin" on fountain drinks.  Then you get the McDoubles margin at a low 25%, factor in running a bajillion "Lovin' It" commercials a day, and you're down to their actual "profit margin" of ~17%. 

I guess what the article is trying to get at is that it's pretty easy to avoid the 95% margin fountain drink - bring it home and drink something there, bring a bottle of something with you, just drink water, get it and refill half a dozen times.  Internet options for consumers aren't the same.

[mu_hilltopper]

And .. that concept had occurred to me, except .. fountain drinks is just one item in a menu of 75 at McD's. 

Phone, Cable TV programming and internet .. pretty much is the whole enchilada for TWC.   It's not like they also have a huge typewriter manufacturing line that's bringing the whole margin down.

[jesmu84]

Boom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html?_r=0

ELI5:

The "is it good or bad" comes down to whether you're a proponent of net neutrality or not. If you are, it was the best result possible at this point. If you aren't, this was the worst possible result at this stage.

So, here's the short and neutral version:

Broadband ISPs (the companies which own the actual DSL, cable, and fiber lines which bring the Internet to you, like Comcast or Centurylink) would really like to be able to offer tiered services and prioritize content from certain sites. For example, they'd like to say "we'll charge $90/month for 50 megabits and access to every site, but if you want 50 megabits and only want to use Facebook and YouTube, we'll offer that plan."

Very much like how cable television works.

They would also like to be able to take extra money from YouTube to give priority to data from YouTube to consumers, which naturally means data from some other video site would be slower to be transmitted.

The FCC is not a big fan of this, and enacted a rule basically saying "you're a utility and can't treat some data different from other data." Kind of like how the water company can't decide it's more important to give water to the wealthier neighborhoods.

ISPs filed suit, essentially arguing that the FCC does not have the power under existing laws to classify them as a utility or subject them to rules demanding they engage in the same neutrality required of the companies which owned the phone lines with regards to their use for Internet access.

What does this hinge on?

Well, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and that's the law that gives the FCC any power in this area. And the ISPs contend that the language of the statute and intent to mirror then-existing FCC rules indicates Congress intended to distinguish broadband from telecommunications. The FCC disagrees.

The D.C Circuit agreed with the FCC.

So, what does it mean going forward? For the time being the FCC's rule is enforceable. But (and this is important) that could be changed by the FCC itself (a new administration, for example), the Supreme Court, or Congress.

Unfortunately for the American people, I'm sure all the telecoms are currently spending unspeakable amounts on more lobbying at this very moment, so that soon, Congress will change things.

[#UnleashSean]

Question  ChicosBailBonds.

Are you for Internet providers regulating which sites we get to faster etc? I can't tell  you your comment if your for or against.

[Skatastrophy]

Exactly the direction our country needs to head in. The government has invested too much money in the scheister companys that control the tubes to get them to upgrade the infrastructure, and instead they've pissed the money away. All while making huge profit margins and running legal monopolies in each city.

About time the government grew a pair and started taking steps to busting this up. It's a great first start to keeping the internet open to make sure that certain data doesn't get preferential treatment over the tubes.

[Hards Alumni]

Exactly the direction our country needs to head in. The government has invested too much money in the scheister companys that control the tubes to get them to upgrade the infrastructure, and instead they've pissed the money away. All while making huge profit margins and running legal monopolies in each city.

About time the government grew a pair and started taking steps to busting this up. It's a great first start to keeping the internet open to make sure that certain data doesn't get preferential treatment over the tubes.

100%

They got enormous subsidies to lay the lines and are now making ridiculous amounts of money (many would say gouging us) from it.  Additionally, they have no incentive to upgrade existing lines.

The internet speeds outside of major urban areas are pathetic.

The USA is close to 3rd world with our high speed internet access.

[Vegasbaby]

Shut the thread down


Political

[#UnleashSean]

100%

They got enormous subsidies to lay the lines and are now making ridiculous amounts of money (many would say gouging us) from it.  Additionally, they have no incentive to upgrade existing lines.

The internet speeds outside of major urban areas are pathetic.

The USA is close to 3rd world with our high speed internet access.

The third world beats us in some parts of the world.

[Vegasbaby]

The third world beats us in some parts of the world.

This thread should be shut down for stupidity.

[mu03eng]

This thread should be shut down for stupidity.

So is this user Chico's or Hoopaloop?

[Vegasbaby]

So is this user Chico's or Hoopaloop?

Neither

I have 3000+ messages here.  My space is in the broadband & wireless infrastructure business.  The last few comments lack any depth of analysis at all.  Size of footprint for the US.  $$ spent, infrastructure built out, other delivery systems including 5G which will begin testing in the next year. 

[jficke13]

Neither

I have 3000+ messages here.  My space is in the broadband & wireless infrastructure business.  The last few comments lack any depth of analysis at all.  Size of footprint for the US.  $$ spent, infrastructure built out, other delivery systems including 5G which will begin testing in the next year.

We're all waiting with bated breath for you to bring the commandments down from atop the mountain.

Enlighten us, sensei.

[Vegasbaby]

We're all waiting with bated breath for you to bring the commandments down from atop the mountain.

Enlighten us, sensei.

Look at the size of this nation, the number of customers served high speeds, then compare that to the world.  Volume and geographic footprint is critical.  Smaller the footprint, fewer people, means infinitely easier to connect people.  If your population is densely packed into a small footprint, then it is easier to pass fiber to reach them.  If a good size of population is spread out in Kansas, west Texas, Nevada, Dakotas, rural California, Alaska, down state Illinois, and every other possibility, that introduces complexities.  Those are filled with other technologies.  For the same resons we do not have a hospital every 15 miles in this country, or a train station, or a highway, this nation's geography and pop distribution matters.




Companies have spent enormous amounts of money to connect this country and continue to spend.

[#UnleashSean]

Look at the size of this nation, the number of customers served high speeds, then compare that to the world.  Volume and geographic footprint is critical.  Smaller the footprint, fewer people, means infinitely easier to connect people.  If your population is densely packed into a small footprint, then it is easier to pass fiber to reach them.  If a good size of population is spread out in Kansas, west Texas, Nevada, Dakotas, rural California, Alaska, down state Illinois, and every other possibility, that introduces complexities.  Those are filled with other technologies.  For the same resons we do not have a hospital every 15 miles in this country, or a train station, or a highway, this nation's geography and pop distribution matters.




Companies have spent enormous amounts of money to connect this country and continue to spend.

Yup. That's why Google has already connected so many cities with gigabyte. And why in those same cities isps prices have dropped and speeds increased within months.