[OGinparadise]

they want content providers to pay in effect to upgrade the ISP's own internal network -- which their own customers already paid them to do, but if they double dip then it's pure profit.

Customers paid for what exactly? Buffet prices are low because not everyone eats 14 dishes. I have downloaded over 100GB this past week but I pay a lot of money to my ISP. If I paid the equivalent of USD 10 and enough people did what I did, they'd have two options: increase prices for everyone or eat the extra bandwidth and network upgrades. Maybe someone can look at whether telcos have an extraordinary profit margin or not but I don't think so.

The telcos do not pay, their customers do and price /offering are always being adjusted either by a bandwidth cap, a higher price or both.

[AnthonyMouse]

>Buffet prices are low because not everyone eats 14 dishes.

Buffet prices are low because bits are extraordinarily cheap. Come back the day AT&T posts an annual net loss and we can talk about raising prices.

>Maybe someone can look at whether telcos have an extraordinary profit margin or not but I don't think so.

http://ycharts.com/companies/T/profit_margin

The average looks to be in excess of 10%. That's pretty extraordinary. Certainly well in excess of the market average.

[OGinparadise]

Att is one of the many. At&t and others will increase prices to keep their profit so maybe that's the wrong way to look at it.

The average looks to be in excess of 10%. That's pretty extraordinary. Certainly well in excess of the market average.

Not good enough to be Google though at over 15%. You may also want to compare earnings and debt. T has http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=T+Key+Statistics over $60 BILLION in debt and relatively low earnings.

[AnthonyMouse]

Can you articulate how any of the numbers you're mentioning have anything to do with their ability to pay for capacity upgrades? Earnings are what's left after they make their capital investments. And after they make all the investments they deem necessary, they're still posting large, stable, recurring profits.

Moreover, when a corporation is simultaneously holding debt and issuing dividends, the reason it continues to hold the debt is not because it needs to remain "in debt" to continue its operations. Barring incompetence, it's almost always either because the rate it's paying on the debt is below the market rate of return and so paying the debt has a negative relative value, or because holding debt has some sort of tax or business advantage for the company.

And bringing in Google is just a complete non-sequitur. AT&T can't afford to pay for upgrades because Google has a lot of money? Nonsense.

[OGinparadise]

Earnings are what's left after they make their capital investments. And after they make all the investments they deem necessary, they're still posting large, stable, recurring profits.

Ah yes, only non-telcos should show a profit for shareholders. My point, that you go out of your way to miss, is that 1. both sides are for profit corps 2. Free.fr and other might have to increase prices to keep up with demand 3. if Free.fr, Verizon or At&t imposed usage caps the same crowd would go after them with as much vigor.

And bringing in Google is just a complete non-sequitur. AT&T can't afford to pay for upgrades because Google has a lot of money? Nonsense.

How about let Google (or Netflix or ...) chip in? They are making a killing relative to telcos.

[AnthonyMouse]

>Ah yes, only non-telcos should show a profit for shareholders. My point, that you go out of your way to miss, is that 1. both sides are for profit corps 2. Free.fr and other might have to increase prices to keep up with demand 3. if Free.fr, Verizon or At&t imposed usage caps the same crowd would go after them with as much vigor.

None of those things are necessary. ISPs can make network improvements while posting stable profits without imposing usage caps or charging excessive prices. What they can't do is to do all of those things while making undeserved monopoly profits.

>How about let Google (or Netflix or ...) chip in? They are making a killing relative to telcos.

Heck, Walmart makes a lot of money too, why not have them pay for it?

If you want Google to pay for last mile improvements then move to Kansas City. I mean seriously, why should I pay AT&T if Google is the one paying to build the network? Why don't we just cut out the middle man and have Google run fiber to my house?