8 ms·

That's a rebate if you provide proof of purchase though, and a rebate for general use. Neither of those discounts are something that relies on the electric comp

by lovich 9y ago

That's a rebate if you provide proof of purchase though, and a rebate for general use. Neither of those discounts are something that relies on the electric company knowing what is plugged into your house at any given moment, because _they cant_ tell what's hooked up at any given moment. If net neutrality goes away ISPs not only will be able to tell what you are doing, but they will charge you more for it too. You can always try to use a VPN but nothing is stopping ISPs from charging x100 times the normal rate for VPN traffic or telling your von provider that they need to cough up if they don't want their traffic slowed. All of this might even be acceptable if ISPs were just in the internet business. Companies would bid up for use of the internet the same way that Google is pulling some of the best engineers by paying triple what a small business in the Midwest would pay even though they both need software engineers. Unfortunately ISPs are also in other industries like content, and they are going to be incentivized to nuke their competitors. Since the US apparently has no concept of enforcing anti trust laws anymore, ISPs can just slowly chip their way into other internet based businesses. They can either get into industries themselves or they can blackmail industry leaders to stay faster than competitors. That will lead to both increased prices for consumers as companies pass on their costs, as well as a lack of any competition because there's now a giant wall of ISP fees to overcome for any startup to try and compete with.

stephengillie 9y ago
From GP: > ...or if you connect your smart thermostat to their API In a way, this sounds like a car insurance company lowering your rates for keeping their sensor device in your car. Comcast is getting into the home automation/security/IoT business too - ISPs haven't been profitable for decades, which explains why they (1) keep squeezing their existing customer base for more money, and (2) keep expanding into new - possibly unrelated - markets like stadium ownership. Anything to avoid lowering the dividend price.
- intended 9y ago
  ISPs havent been profitable? Wow. That would be nuts - Since when? this is America, where ARPU is measured in its native currency of the dollar without a conversion cost, in a nation where they have some of the worst competitive landscape, subsidized roll out, and yet incomplete roll out of infrastructure. And they are still not profitable ? Sorry, for the request for a source, since it may come across rude- but I’m damn surprised. I evens recall most telecom operators being positive about their growth and numbers overall. Perhaps the parent poster is right and America would be much better off with nationalized internet infrastructure.
  - stephengillie 9y ago
    Centurylink's CEO has been having to defend their dividend in the face of a slipping stock price and questionable profit. Our local road infrastructure and our highway road infrastructure are both largely government-operated. Many local and municipal governments operate their own ISPs. Yet people illogically fear their government more than their ISP.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Telecoms are profitable for the most part, but rates of return are low in comparison to other industries: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Strategy%20and%20Corporate%20Finance/Our%20Insights/A%20long%20term%20look%20at%20ROIC/PNG%20037_A_longterm_look_at_ROIC_Exh_2.ashx https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functio....
    - intended 9y ago
      The comp is against other telcos though, not other industries So for example pharma rates of return would be irrelevant. Saw that chart - that’s exactly why you never use a chart like that, it’s effectively prejudicial without context.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        If you’re reliant on private capital to build and upgrade internet infrastructure, what matters is rates of return on other potential investments that are competing for the same sources of capital.
        intended 9y ago
        But you are not - as I recall there are subsidies given to the telcos and telecom spectrum and rights of way are on public grounds. So from the get to it’s not comparable to other industries. A specific weakness of your argument - Your position holds for a certain kind of investor but has nothing to do with running a business of building a business- nothing to do with Operations. The risk profiles and returns on telecom are known, and so investors in it know what they are getting. So telcos can raise debt, with maturity and interest rates suitable for them. And financiers spread risk. If black stone doesn’t want to invest in telecom, some other firm or telecom focused fund will invest. At the end of the day, there are only so many above average or average returns you can get per billion of dollars - so people invest in multiple industries. And when they invest - they examine (comp/compare) the firms against the others in their market. I know because i saw the models and the comps.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
You just made an excellent argument for starting to enforce antitrust laws again. But not a very good argument for net neutrality. (And Title II actually exempts ISPs from FTC regulation.) We need to fix antitrust. Of course, one of the biggest sponsors of every net neutrality-supporting website on the Internet (Google) doesn't want to fix antitrust. This is why net neutrality regulations are carefully designed not to apply to tech companies, and why things like the old ISP privacy rules that were repealed solely targeted ISPs. (When states tried to reimplement those privacy rules, but including tech companies, Google, obviously, came out strongly against them.) Which is why Comcast slowing a competitor is a mortal sin, but Google's websites not working on Firefox (or them outright blocking Amazon devices) is no big deal, legislatively. Let's get the FTC back to what it was built for: Breaking up companies like Ma Bell and El Goog.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  > This is why net neutrality regulations are carefully designed not to apply to tech companies Because they're not even remotely similar? My isp is not the same as a host I connect to. They're not even possible to compare.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    I've heard this argument many times, but I have yet to find a convincing take on it. What is the difference? If a company is using their monopoly, be it a network or a service or a platform, to do anticompetitive things that violate the law and hurt consumers, how are they different? Why do ISPs need special regulations that DON'T apply to other types of monopolies?
    - jimktrains2 9y ago
      > What is the difference? I'm buying the infrastructure to communicate from one, and the other does, well, does anything. Should anyone that uses the telephone to do business, even exclusively, be a Title I carrier? No, that would be absurd because they don't sell telecommunication. > If a company is using their monopoly, be it a network or a service or a platform, to do anticompetitive things that violate the law and hurt consumers, how are they different? I mean, I could ask you the same about standard oil and Microsoft. How are they different? They both abused their monopoly. > Why do ISPs need special regulations that DON'T apply to other types of monopolies The same reason we grant phone, electric, water, sewer, and natural gas companies the same types of monopolistic leeway in exchange for some additional regulations: infrastructure is expensive and takes up space. It's difficult to have multiple of any of these providers in the same geographic market. How many water lines can you run in a street? Sure, we can run many phone and isp lines, but it becomes extremely messy and leads to other issues that eventually led to the types of regulations in exchange for monopoly were discussing. This isn't a new problem. Now, I'm not saying Google shouldn't be subject to antitrust law. I'm saying Google doesn't sell me telecommunication services and therefore it doesn't makes sense to regulate it as one. (Project Fi and Google Fiber both fall under their respective FCC regulations.)

by lovich 9y ago

stephengillie 9y ago

From GP: > ...or if you connect your smart thermostat to their API In a way, this sounds like a car insurance company lowering your rates for keeping their sensor device in your car. Comcast is getting into the home automation/security/IoT business too - ISPs haven't been profitable for decades, which explains why they (1) keep squeezing their existing customer base for more money, and (2) keep expanding into new - possibly unrelated - markets like stadium ownership. Anything to avoid lowering the dividend price.

intended 9y ago
ISPs havent been profitable? Wow. That would be nuts - Since when? this is America, where ARPU is measured in its native currency of the dollar without a conversion cost, in a nation where they have some of the worst competitive landscape, subsidized roll out, and yet incomplete roll out of infrastructure. And they are still not profitable ? Sorry, for the request for a source, since it may come across rude- but I’m damn surprised. I evens recall most telecom operators being positive about their growth and numbers overall. Perhaps the parent poster is right and America would be much better off with nationalized internet infrastructure.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  Centurylink's CEO has been having to defend their dividend in the face of a slipping stock price and questionable profit. Our local road infrastructure and our highway road infrastructure are both largely government-operated. Many local and municipal governments operate their own ISPs. Yet people illogically fear their government more than their ISP.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Telecoms are profitable for the most part, but rates of return are low in comparison to other industries: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Strategy%20and%20Corporate%20Finance/Our%20Insights/A%20long%20term%20look%20at%20ROIC/PNG%20037_A_longterm_look_at_ROIC_Exh_2.ashx https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functio....
  - intended 9y ago
    The comp is against other telcos though, not other industries So for example pharma rates of return would be irrelevant. Saw that chart - that’s exactly why you never use a chart like that, it’s effectively prejudicial without context.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      If you’re reliant on private capital to build and upgrade internet infrastructure, what matters is rates of return on other potential investments that are competing for the same sources of capital.
      - intended 9y ago
        But you are not - as I recall there are subsidies given to the telcos and telecom spectrum and rights of way are on public grounds. So from the get to it’s not comparable to other industries. A specific weakness of your argument - Your position holds for a certain kind of investor but has nothing to do with running a business of building a business- nothing to do with Operations. The risk profiles and returns on telecom are known, and so investors in it know what they are getting. So telcos can raise debt, with maturity and interest rates suitable for them. And financiers spread risk. If black stone doesn’t want to invest in telecom, some other firm or telecom focused fund will invest. At the end of the day, there are only so many above average or average returns you can get per billion of dollars - so people invest in multiple industries. And when they invest - they examine (comp/compare) the firms against the others in their market. I know because i saw the models and the comps.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

You just made an excellent argument for starting to enforce antitrust laws again. But not a very good argument for net neutrality. (And Title II actually exempts ISPs from FTC regulation.) We need to fix antitrust. Of course, one of the biggest sponsors of every net neutrality-supporting website on the Internet (Google) doesn't want to fix antitrust. This is why net neutrality regulations are carefully designed not to apply to tech companies, and why things like the old ISP privacy rules that were repealed solely targeted ISPs. (When states tried to reimplement those privacy rules, but including tech companies, Google, obviously, came out strongly against them.) Which is why Comcast slowing a competitor is a mortal sin, but Google's websites not working on Firefox (or them outright blocking Amazon devices) is no big deal, legislatively. Let's get the FTC back to what it was built for: Breaking up companies like Ma Bell and El Goog.

jimktrains2 9y ago
> This is why net neutrality regulations are carefully designed not to apply to tech companies Because they're not even remotely similar? My isp is not the same as a host I connect to. They're not even possible to compare.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  I've heard this argument many times, but I have yet to find a convincing take on it. What is the difference? If a company is using their monopoly, be it a network or a service or a platform, to do anticompetitive things that violate the law and hurt consumers, how are they different? Why do ISPs need special regulations that DON'T apply to other types of monopolies?
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    > What is the difference? I'm buying the infrastructure to communicate from one, and the other does, well, does anything. Should anyone that uses the telephone to do business, even exclusively, be a Title I carrier? No, that would be absurd because they don't sell telecommunication. > If a company is using their monopoly, be it a network or a service or a platform, to do anticompetitive things that violate the law and hurt consumers, how are they different? I mean, I could ask you the same about standard oil and Microsoft. How are they different? They both abused their monopoly. > Why do ISPs need special regulations that DON'T apply to other types of monopolies The same reason we grant phone, electric, water, sewer, and natural gas companies the same types of monopolistic leeway in exchange for some additional regulations: infrastructure is expensive and takes up space. It's difficult to have multiple of any of these providers in the same geographic market. How many water lines can you run in a street? Sure, we can run many phone and isp lines, but it becomes extremely messy and leads to other issues that eventually led to the types of regulations in exchange for monopoly were discussing. This isn't a new problem. Now, I'm not saying Google shouldn't be subject to antitrust law. I'm saying Google doesn't sell me telecommunication services and therefore it doesn't makes sense to regulate it as one. (Project Fi and Google Fiber both fall under their respective FCC regulations.)