|
Ardennes posted:Wouldn't a comparison to the developed world be far more accurate? If you adjust for cost of living, also. (Btw, as I posted in the net neutrality thread when someone blamed Wheeler - when was he a lobbyist for the wired broadband industry? loving never, you idiots. He left NCTA 30 years ago.)
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Xandu posted:You're right, particularly about his position on net neutrality, but there's a reason people bring it up. The ideal person to work in a regulatory position is not someone who has spent a large part of their career working as a lobbyist (although I'm more bothered that he only got the position because he raised 500k for Obama). Much of that might have been working on behalf of the cell phone industry, but it still betrays a certain mindset in my opinion. John Adams represented redcoats in court. Just saying, representation is not agreement. At worst, you tend to represent those you agree with (though again, Adams) and most of the time the major downside is that you're going to take the calls of the people you used to work with. Wheeler represented the cable industry when its big concerns were getting access to utility poles on equal terms and making stealing cable illegal. The cable industry he represented had around 30 million subscribers country-wide. The idea that any lingering influence from back then is influencing him now is ridiculous. Then he represented the wireless industry when it was still fragmented and trying to both stabilize on new interoperable standards and compete with wired phones. He oversaw a rapid expansion period where they went from 15 million subscribers to 200 million subscribers in the process. Again, the idea that the interests of VZW and AT&T now mirror those of CTIA back then is wrong. He was involved in tech startups for the decade prior to his appointment. He publicly advocated for the use of merger conditions to impose additional restrictions on the AT&T/T-Mobile merge. Basically his entire career he's been representing people whose interest is in obtaining or maintaining access to networks that existing players would prefer to keep them out of. But no, his words and actions carry no weight compared to his involvement with cable (three decades ago) and wireless (a decade ago) industry groups. (The fact that he got it in part because of fundraising? Yeah, that's a legit criticism.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, I wonder why there is such a gap between Alaska Communications and GCI, rural versus urban access? GCI is your standard cable modem setup, Alaska Communications is a DSL provider.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
3peat posted:For comparison, here's what we get in Romania from RDS, the biggest ISP in the country with 55% market share: The average disposable income of someone in NY is about 9x higher than the average disposable income of someone in Bucharest, so actually those prices seem pretty reasonable to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 23:51
|
|
)
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I guess the US wasn't very developed circa 1990, who knew? A better analogy for fish mechs point might be to think of it like so. And, though I can't remember the relevant smiley, it is a car analogy. The US graduated college in 1996, moved out, got a job, needed a car. So they bought a 1996 Lumina. And I mean, it was a pretty nice car! Plush seats, decent gas mileage, ran well, etc. Romania graduated in 2005. They moved out and got a job too. So they bought a 2005 Prius. And it's a nice car. Great gas mileage, nifty dashboard GPS, etc. The US took a look at the Prius and said "well, I could replace my Lumina - which gets me there just about as fast, even if it costs a bit more to operate - and get those bells and whistles too." Of course, then the US would have to pay for a new car, which is a pretty big investment when you have a perfectly functional car right there. It's not that installing fiber costs more than installing coax - it's that the coax is already there, so you work with what you have. More recent entrants put in better stuff because it cost the same to install as technology developed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Xae posted:Explain to me how your position is substantively different than "64KB of Memory ought to be enough for anyone". "640kb of memory is enough for everyone at present time and our systems are theoretically capable of supporting a terabyte of memory if needed, but no one has shown a need for it yet. Also, installing support for that terabyte of memory costs an incredibly large amount of money, with no benefit to us, so we are holding off on it until there's a use case people will pay for."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
UX item 2 is incorrect - US ISPs generally do deliver advertised speed, far more so than most other countries' ISPs. There was a link posted up thread showing exactly that. (Re interruptions, I somehow doubt that that's a US specific problem. Contractors cut cables everywhere, after all.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
In 2012, the FCCs broadband progress report notes that: 90% of Americans had access to services providing at least 10 Mbps down. 28% of Americans had subscribed to services of at least 6/1.5 capacity. Edit: the First and Second Measuring Broadband reports say everyone saying "I don't get advertised speed!" is full of poo poo. And the most common reason people don't subscribe to broadband or to higher tiers, per an extensive FCC study on this topic, is that they don't want it. Not cost. They just don't see the need. (See the Digital Nation report for details.) It's almost like this is a well studied topic with tons of data proving your anecdotes wrong! Kalman fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
lunatikfringe posted:People are still willing to pay for marginal service over outdated infrastructure because they can't be without their internet. Nope. As I posted above, per FCC studies on this topic, availability of high speed Internet outstrips adoption and lack of adoption is primarily due to lack of interest and secondarily due to inability to take advantage (digital literacy concerns), not cost considerations.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
lunatikfringe posted:Again ISPs have carefully crafted their industry to be able to provide the bare minimum just to keep enough people happy. 2012. 90% had 10 mb or greater downlink available. 28% had bought it. The most common reason given for why someone chooses not to get service? "Not relevant/desired." Some more FCC data to shut up people arguing their anecdotes: 2012, ISPs averaged 96 percent advertised speed during evening peak time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106870.html That wasn't a bailout, though? That was very much the opposite. Verizon wanted to borrow money on a short term loan (something companies do normally even when profitable for a number of reasons) but couldn't find any loans on the private market because the financial industry was frozen. So the Feds stepped in to make the loan instead. Verizon paid them back 90 days later. Commercial paper is what businesses use when they need to meet a financial obligation now, but don't have cash on hand to meet it - they borrow for a short period of time against future income to smooth out spiky income. Verizon probably wouldn't have failed without that loan, but it would have forced them to defer making other payments to other companies. Kalman fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
You get that there's a difference between the bailout and commercial paper purchases, right? Like the fact that Verizon paid it back 90 days later and that commercial paper functions as a short term liquidity enhancement? Basically, just like no individual could get car or home loans during the core of the crisis, Verizon couldn't access credit either. Companies borrow money all the time. So the government made the short term loan needed by Verizon, which was paid back on the usual 90 day schedule, at value with interest. Contrast that with the bailouts where the government purchases portions of troubles companies for less than value with the hope that maybe, someday, they'd make the money back.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:I guess you know way more than the Washington Post political and business writers then. Really glad you're here to straighten things up. Since I provided evidence how about you do the same? Or is this just what you do on your extended lunch breaks? Well, okay. http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_cpff.htm I guess the Federal Reserve knows a lot more than WaPo. Edit: Verizon paid around 45 million dollars for the privilege of holding 1.5 billion bucks of the fed's money for 90 days. Kalman fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:And what do we call this in the financial world? Commercial paper. Usually issued by banks. On any given day like today there's usually around 280 billion dollars of CP outstanding. For some reason banks weren't issuing any CP in late 2008...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Serious question, what would have happened to Verizon had they not gotten that loan? Short term layoffs and delayed payments to suppliers, most likely. They wouldn't have collapsed or anything close to it. And again, commercial paper is a fact of life for a lot of large companies - Verizon likely wasn't predicting the complete dissolution of the financial system when structuring their operations.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Which is what should happen to a company that takes an incredibly risky short term financial strategy that blows up in their face. Instead of having the government come in and allow them to entrench their position in the marketplace (what happened) What the hell are you talking about? Commercial paper isn't risky or a short term financial strategy - it's a normal operating strategy for many large companies to manage liquidity and non-uniform cash flow. Edit: analogy time! I get paid once a month (true story, it's annoying). As a result, I put my purchases on a credit card during the month and pay it all off when I get paid. I could pay from cash during the month but I do it this way instead (mostly because I wind up flying interesting places for free as a result). Except all of a sudden, I find out no one is extending credit this month and I can't use my cards. Clearly my poor financial situation (of having the income to pay my bills in 30 days time) and planning (of expecting access to credit to continue) was faulty. Kalman fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
... Short term paper isn't risk. It's used to smooth out obligations and income. It's the super-large corporations equivalent of a revolving credit line, which is the medium/small sized firm equivalent to a personal charge card. You use it for convenience and to make it so you don't need to hold the entire sum of cash on hand to pay obligations during the times in between income. For large corporations that day to day cash flow is significant, so forcing it to sit in a bank account is not actually desirable. What part of that aren't you getting? down with slavery posted:This is a problem, despite the governments attempts to keep this system alive. Large organizations should not live or die by short term financing. That sort of risk should be curtailed via regulation (lol who am I kidding the guys writing the rules are the ones making bank) What risk is reduced by allowing companies to use short term loans to smooth out their cash inflow and outflow? Or, thinking of it another way, what benefit exists for forcing companies to sit on a giant pile of cash to prepay expected obligations instead of being allowed to fund day to day operations with day to day income? That kind of idiot thinking is currently destroying the Post Office.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
So Verizon should sit on around 7.5 billion dollars at any one point in time (90b in annual costs divided by 12) because you think they should prefund one month out instead of being able to rely on commercial credit like everyone else, commercial credit that they never have a problem obtaining except when the system is collapsing. Yeah, that makes sense. You've convinced me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Except Verizon did nothing wrong? I mean, seriously, if you woke up tomorrow morning and your credit card suddenly didn't work would you go "I should have expected that and hedged against that risk?" The compelling alternative I've provided is called "assume that credit markets remain functional because they always have been and in the event they become non functional without warning we are hosed anyways." (I also don't think Verizon should have to hedge against meteors hitting the earth.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Ahh yes, Verizon, a multibillion dollar multinational, comparable to a consumer credit card. You could write a really compelling argument on the Blaze about government debt I bet. Credit markets being suddenly nonfunctional isn't a reasonable risk to hedge against. (And you're the one making the insane "large companies should have a month of expenses on hand just like individuals should" argument.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Verizon isn't too big to fail, though? The CFPP wasn't a program extended to tbtf entities, it was a program created to stand in for the failures of tbtf entities.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:It's only insane if you don't want to see 2008 happen again. Ideally we just break up the TBTF companies, but if they must exist they should not operate in a fashion where they are financed day to day. Yes, I do not want to see 2008 happen again, which is why I think it's insane. Thank you for emphasizing my point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Profits are not why Verizon uses commercial paper though, as I have pointed out more than a few times. They take them out because their cash flow doesn't match up with their payment schedule and they need to smooth the difference out.computer parts posted:It sounds like that would be "essentially all firms" if you include the latter condition. A good point. Small businesses pretty much universally use short term loans to finance operations because most people don't have a months worth of costs in their pocket when they start their business up. And of course if you want to get bigger, better save up more money to prefund your next month of operations instead of taking advantage of chances to grow right now. Kalman fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Yes, monopolistic national telecommunications providers have a GREAT record of providing advanced services at a low cost. See: Ma Bell, BT, pre-privatization Telstra, Bell Canada, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The fact that every single CPFP loan was repaid with interest implies that these were not risky loans, purchased by aggressively risky firms. These firms were not the cause of the financial crisis--they were victims. Capital requirements for Verizon would do nothing to influence the risk of future banking crises because Verizon is not a bank. Also because even if all the banks had had one month of operating costs on hand, it wouldn't have prevented a crisis caused by overvalued capital assets triggering obligations far in excess of day to day operating costs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:christ down with slavery i feel like the last 3 pages have been caused by you being unwilling to admit you were mistaken with regards to verizon getting a bailout. Pretty sure that down with slavery would unironically argue for the latter also.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Great, now explain why telcos like Verizon requires the use of these instruments when they are literally making billions every quarter. What value is added by them using these exactly (other than making the books look prettier and exposing them to systemic risk) Verizon makes several billion in loans each quarter in the form of carrier subsidies (they pay full freight to the manufacturer and recover it over time). Commercial paper is one of the most common ways non-financial institutions float loan capital, since their business model doesn't rely on having capital available to loan out, and using short term loans insulates them against variation in sales (both positive, by allowing them to make more sales without having increased capital on hand, and negative, by allows in them not to have cash sitting around unused.) And again, if credit had remained unavailable, Verizon would have failed even if they had had a month of cash on hand as the entire system ground to a halt. It isn't systemic risk that commercial paper exposes them to - it's catastrophic risk, and as I have said multiple times, there's literally no point in hedging against the end of the world because at the end of the day, the world loving ended.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Commercial paper is not used by all businesses. It is, however, used by many businesses, to the tune of approximately 300 billion dollars outstanding on any given day. The overwhelming majority of which is essentially zero risk and is paid back in the three month window.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Yes, and what I'm saying is that they don't need to have capital on hand that they don't have. Making that available is exposing them to systemic risk whether or not you want to admit it. It is a CHOICE to allow this behavior. You have yet to demonstrate the benefits aside from them being able to spend more money before they have it. Do you think making those funds available to them benefits society in some measurable way? Why do we allow large corporations to operate this way in the first place if it's not necessary? Yes, the federal government ended the liquidity crisis by doing things like MAKING LOANS TO loving VERIZON LIKE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. The availability of commercial paper is, again, not the kind of risk you need to worry about. Interest rate changes is a more meaningful one, but because commercial paper is (because of regulatory issues) at most a 270 day duration and more typically a 90 day duration, changes tend to occur relatively gradually and rate shock is minimal. Or we could sit on trillions of dollars as an economy and have it provide us with no benefit whatsoever since a liquidity crisis would still annihilate these companies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No poo poo? Who said otherwise. You did. You complained that Verizon shouldn't rely on commercial paper being available because it exposes them to risk. Then you said that instead of using that, they should hold cash on hand. When I pointed out that holding cash on hand wouldn't actually have insulated them from risk in the event of a liquidity crisis, you fell back on the federal government backstopping the commercial paper market. So basically, you said that Verizon shouldn't take loans and should sit on cash to avoid risk, and when it was pointed out that that wouldn't actually avoid the risk of the lending market collapsing, you said that "well obviously the lending market didn't collapse because the government ended the liquidity crisis." So basically, you are simultaneously arguing that commercial paper exposes Verizon to unacceptable levels of risk, and arguing that that risk is non-existent because the government will step in. (The trillions was a reference to your "corporations should have a month's costs on hand just in case.") A serious question: do you think credit being available is a good thing, y/n? edit: Also, way to link to the 2011 numbers, you lying piece of poo poo. The current numbers are, as I have said, ~300 billion in non-financial. 200ish for domestic. Kalman fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Yes, I know. That quoted statement was made in passing. I got the data for you, turns out these commercial paper markets ARE hardly necessary. What data, the data from 2011 that's completely out of date? Come back when you aren't lying through your teeth.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Haha yes my data is 3 years old so now I'm a liar. The flailing is adorable. I am really enjoying your quoting back to me the exact page I linked, which shows that your numbers are off by over a hundred billion dollars.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
There were a couple tax breaks which people claimed required Verizon to deliver FTTH with certain speeds. The actual deals generally required Verizon to have fiber in position to deliver FTTH, not actual delivery. Verizon fulfilled some and asked the relevant states to withdraw requirements post dotcom crash in other cases.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:A lot of the suppliers that were most gung ho to be part of these initiatives were dead by the time the dot com boom was over. Hell, Nortel was going to provide broadband to every house via power wires. Too bad Cisco put them so deep in the ground nobody could find the body (bought by Avaya, but still, Nortel was a HUGE company pre-bust, and died because of believing the hype). Lucent (I.e. the telco portion of Bell Labs) also basically collapsed in that timeframe for much the same reasons (and wound up belonging to Alcatel for the most part, minus some spinoffs - such as Avaya.) The dotcom crash killed a ton of serious telco research labs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Verizon: 149 + 100 per month Uh, the part where your 40-50 pounds is worth 70-85 dollars is probably worth figuring, yes. A UK salary of 25k pounds is not going to go to the same person as a US salary of 25k dollars - employers understand currency conversions. And did you miss that EE has a 2 year contract requirement?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:There's plenty of other companies among the 236 that could be described as "huge and not operated monolithically" yet for some reason the two largest cable internet providers are dead last and close to dead last out of a massive list of companies on customer satisfaction. If they are fulfilling their advertised service and are still hated this much the only logical conclusion is that people simply aren't satisfied with the service that they provide. I hate Comcast because when I have to deal with them, they're a tremendous pain in the rear end. I'm perfectly happy with my internet and tv though. I just hate them because when we moved, they made moving our service more annoying than it had to be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The companies will never improve the networks as long as they can squeeze people for what is already available. Except they do improve their networks, regularly?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Dystram posted:As competition wanes and disappears, and squeezing the content provider end of the pipe becomes more likely, the incentive to do that is what? Neither of those has changed negatively over the past decade though - now while you likely have one cable and one DSL option, practical wireless options are developing (yes they still suck but it's not like competition has gotten worse) and they could have squeezed content providers at basically any point since the Telecom Act because there's been an enforceable net neutrality obligation for about six months in the past twenty years. So basically, the same incentives they've had.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Except they dont. My service going from 10 to 25 to 50 Mbps down over the past four years at the same price point calls you a goddamn liar. But hey, I'm sure you can back up your "their service is not improving."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Hey everyone who thinks that all of our farmland is why broadband suck so bad in the US, why is it that most major metropolitan areas (high population density) also have lovely and expensive broadband service compared to most other countries? They don't, even though US urban broadband customers are required to explicitly subsidize rural telco and broadband customers in a way that subscribers in other countries don't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 12:56
|
|