3 edits | reply to jimbo2150
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place said by jimbo2150: What about greed? $1/gb is not excessive greed? $0.20/text message is not excessive greed? I am all for companies making money, but legitimate money. And what exactly is greed? At what point does making a profit become greed? Well, that is strictly in the eye of the purchaser. For some people, greed is any company that makes a profit greater than 1%. And for a very few, greed is when a company makes any profit at all. So what is the % that fits your definition of greed? Is it a profit tied to the Cost of Capital? Is it a risk weighted return better than you could earn in a so-called safe investment like treasury bills? Is it some % above the rate of inflation?
So, what is your definition?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Reviews:
 ·Charter
 ·Clearwire Wireless
2 edits | I'd call greedy any broadband based company that is attempting to get more money for less service during a rough recession that will stiffle recovery
For all the talk of defending corporations TK, I'm surprised your defending this. If the economy doesn't recover, which steps like these may make it happen, their won't be any way for corporations to survive.
With all this said, I think greed is something that works outside of the free market. If you set your product to be any price, and the customer pays it, then good. Even if it's billions of dollars.
If they don't want to pay that, then you go down. Greed is destruction of free market IMO. |
|
|
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Tk
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Espaeth has a point and we move the total HSI revenue cost from $146 million to an even $1 Billion, which should cover ANY imagined costs. You are still making over four times as much as your costs. I do not hold it against any company to make an honest profit, but can you really say that anything over 100% profit is honest? ($4.159 - $1)/$1=316%(profit) |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
·Clearwire Wireless
1 edit | said by Lazlow:Tk Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Espaeth has a point and we move the total HSI revenue cost from $146 million to an even $1 Billion, which should cover ANY imagined costs. You are still making over four times as much as your costs. I do not hold it against any company to make an honest profit, but can you really say that anything over 100% profit is honest? ($4.159 - $1)/$1=316%(profit) I don't see a problem with it, as long as customers keep paying it and WANTING to pay.
The TWC CEO must be a complete idiot, if you are making that much revenue, why piss off your customers?
Make a few network upgrades, add new speeds, make people pay more for the new speeds! Not piss them off, lose customers and business.
When did executives forget how to treat customers? You are supposed to kiss their ass, make them feel good, even if you aren't going to fill their needs... |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:Tk Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Espaeth has a point and we move the total HSI revenue cost from $146 million to an even $1 Billion, which should cover ANY imagined costs. You are still making over four times as much as your costs. I do not hold it against any company to make an honest profit, but can you really say that anything over 100% profit is honest? ($4.159 - $1)/$1=316%(profit) Most companies that I have worked for would consider a profit that is 4 times documented costs as a pretty terrible margin. You simply can't expand with that kind of limited revenue flow and the subsequent cash reserves it would allow for.
I think you'd be surprised to know that most companies have profit margins that are 1000's of percentage points higher than the physical cost. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Metatron2008
Lets flip this around a little bit. Lets compare the video numbers. Cost of Video Revenues $3.75Billion, Video Revenues $10.5 Billion. Now keeping Espaeth point in mind we will add the same $.85 Billion we did for HSI.
3.75+.85= 4.6
(10.5-4.6)/4.6=128%(profit)
So I think disparity in percent profit shows that it is about how much they can convince the user to pay versus what it costs. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Lazlow, can you please provide the link to where you are getting your numbers? Thanks. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | It is from TWC's 10K, usually pages 60 and 89.
»investing.businessweek.com/resea···ype=10-K |
|
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Such an easy way to attempt to say nothing is greed. I can certainly ask the same question... what exactly is NOT greed? 800% pofit? 8000%?
So why is to SOOOOO bad to have a profit aimed at giving decent consumer products and make a decent return 5 years in vs. 0.5 years in? I don't know why so many companies seem to think that if they are not making an immediate return, it should not be done or it is the wrong way to go. When did instant gratification become part of business?
Edit: Also, what about COMPETITION?? They do everything to keep it out and in the Internet business there seems to be very little in most places in the U.S. (with exception to very large metro areas).
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:I think you'd be surprised to know that most companies have profit margins that are 1000's of percentage points higher than the physical cost. And my entire point is... why? Why do they have to have an immediate return at the expense of their customers? What ever happen to long-term investments? And why is it seen as such a bad thing that a company not make a 1000+% profit margin when they could make a 100%. It may take a bit more time for a full return but it would most likely come.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
| reply to Lazlow
And if you look at the overall revenues - costs(excluding a one time charge of $14.8 billion, their profits are not overly high.
Their revenues for TWC were approx $17 billion and the costs were $14 billion. So they made $3 billion on $17 billion in revenue. A 17.6% return.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to jimbo2150
Impatient, short-sighted investors are the culprits behind some of the lousy business decisions we see all the time. |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
·Clearwire Wireless
1 edit | reply to jimbo2150
said by jimbo2150:said by Matt:I think you'd be surprised to know that most companies have profit margins that are 1000's of percentage points higher than the physical cost. And my entire point is... why? Why do they have to have an immediate return at the expense of their customers? What ever happen to long-term investments? And why is it seen as such a bad thing that a company not make a 1000+% profit margin when they could make a 100%. It may take a bit more time for a full return but it would most likely come. Why would a margin 1000's of times be bad to the consumer if they are willing to pay it?
That's just making money. If the customer refuses, making them pay it is monopolistic greed.
But hey, if the customer wants to pay it, why stop them?
In all honesty, their is a large difference between keeping the customer happy, and letting them have a choice, versus being a hippy who wants to share the wealth. |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to jimbo2150
said by jimbo2150:Such an easy way to attempt to say nothing is greed. I can certainly ask the same question... what exactly is NOT greed? 800% pofit? 8000%? So why is to SOOOOO bad to have a profit aimed at giving decent consumer products and make a decent return 5 years in vs. 0.5 years in? I don't know why so many companies seem to think that if they are not making an immediate return, it should not be done or it is the wrong way to go. When did instant gratification become part of business? Edit: Also, what about COMPETITION?? They do everything to keep it out and in the Internet business there seems to be very little in most places in the U.S. (with exception to very large metro areas). I think TK was implying that greed means differently to alot of people. |
|
| reply to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:Why would a margin 1000's of times be bad to the consumer if they are willing to pay it? Now lets factor it competition into your equation. No/little competition means there is little/nothing to offset that excessive price. It means the consumer has little option besides pay it or drop the service (supposing they are not locked in a contact and have to pay early term fees).
The same companies charge excessive rates to allow others to use their network. Well out of the viable competitive range. THey constantly try to prevent competition and even a community's attempts to create competion (either through a local/private network, wireless, or other).
And in the end the consumer has no voice. Stinks to high heaven of greed to me.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to jimbo2150
said by jimbo2150:said by Matt:I think you'd be surprised to know that most companies have profit margins that are 1000's of percentage points higher than the physical cost. And my entire point is... why? Why do they have to have an immediate return at the expense of their customers? What ever happen to long-term investments? And why is it seen as such a bad thing that a company not make a 1000+% profit margin when they could make a 100%. It may take a bit more time for a full return but it would most likely come. I don't mean on the value of their stock. The point of such a high profit margin is to allow for investment in expansion, to better the service, as a safety net for the unexpected. There are numerous reason that successful companies must have such a large profit margin and really require one to operate. Apple has what, a 600% profit margin on the iPhone by most estimates? (That's probably on the low side too.)
When you start talking about huge corporations like Time Warner, that percentage can shrink because that percentage of profit is simply a much larger sum of money. You see that in the executive compensation packages. CEO, CTO, CFO's all figured out if they can eek out 2 points on their stock value by cutting costs, they directly stand to benefit. It may not be much to the profit of the company, but it's still a huge sum of money to an individual. After all, what is $28 million if you had a net profit of $7 billion? That's only .4% of said net profit.
However, that $28 million could have upgraded half your market to DOCSIS 3.0. So a lot of what you see is the result of impatient stock holders who want an immediate return. They are not the majority of the smart investors out there however. They came to the forefront when the day trading phenomenon became prevalent. When you couple that with the greed of an executive, little to no competition, and no oversight by an impartial party, you get what we have now. Greed run rampant in the from of anti-consumer practices. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to jimbo2150
said by jimbo2150:Now lets factor it competition into your equation. No/little competition means there is little/nothing to offset that excessive price. That is exactly right and why I am so infuriated by this entire fiasco. Time Warner is rolling this trial out in markets with little to no competition. Why aren't they rolling this out in their competitive markets where they face FiOS? Isn't THAT where they should upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0? |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
I would simply define it by looking at other industries that actually have true competition.
How much do HP / Dell / IBM make on their PC business?
What about simple hardware vendors like Mwave and Newegg?
Amazon and OneCall?
How about your local grocery stores?
How about your local fast food restaurants?
The problem is you have a company that is a monopoly in many areas and a (cooperative) duopoloy at best in others. Stating that if customers are willing to pay it then they are golden is neither right (morally) or collectively for the consumer base because they truly have no choice.
The number one problem for corporations are investors (like yourself) that don't care about anything except profit. And you don't just want profit, you want it here and now and will sacrifice tomorrow to make a buck today. Worse comes to worse, you just pull your money out of one company and shove it in another as you can care less where you make your money, you just want to make it. Be damned with the company and/or society - give me profit. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
hey TK...would you then mind or be in favor of the gov't taxing the user on a per GB basis? |
|
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:That is exactly right and why I am so infuriated by this entire fiasco. Time Warner is rolling this trial out in markets with little to no competition. Why aren't they rolling this out in their competitive markets where they face FiOS? Isn't THAT where they should upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0? And the low caps to go with it. Will it really be usable for anything other than email? Personally, I am not sure what TW is actually thinking to begin with.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
