approval from:
Linklist 
| reply to funchords
Re: I got it wrong all these years Those are general, non-audited numbers. Let's use Google Finance.
Comcast
»www.google.com/finance?q=cmcsa
Net Profit Margin 10.61% in 3Q2009
Google
»www.google.com/finance?q=goog
Net Profit Margin 27.57% in 3Q2009
Verizon
»www.google.com/finance?q=vz
Net Profit Margin 10.59% in 3Q2009 |
|
| reply to Linklist
MR. JunkMail,
I am very aware of the NPM figures. But in this particular instance, when we are talking about a program to subsidize additional customers on an existing network, the proper figure to analyze is a contribution margin. I'm sure any financial analyst could share the reasons why that is the case, particularly in the case of adding customers to the cable network.
See »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_margin
Second, as to FCC data, $91 is for urban areas, and over 95% of the qualifying homes for this program are located in such areas. Also, the opex in the FCC's slide includes all op-ex, including debt service.
Thank you again for contributing to the debate. |
|
|
|
| reply to Derek Turner
Um, except that the URL is not at wsj.com. ??
said by Derek Turner :
Which explains an ISPs' total (capex + opex + transit) cost in an urban area are $91 per customer per year. Assuming cable ARPU for modem service of $40 per month, that is an 81% profit margin. Please tell us what a fair profit margin % is, and whether than should vary by industry, risk, or any other factors.
said by Derek Turner :
I don't appreciate being called an "anti-corporate idiot", as I think those who know me, even those in the ISP industry would disagree with that point. But that's not really the issue. The real issue is the supra-competitive profits earned by cable ISPs and the loss in consumer surplus this lack of competition causes.
I thought the issue was how to increase broadband Internet adoption? |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:If we have to have a welfare system for the lazy and inept (unfortunately I don't see our welfare society decreasing any time soon), I actually like this idea. Once sufficient skills have been taught, these communes could even be farmed out to surrounding areas to conduct menial labor. After all, if the lazy want Uncle Sam to take care of them, they should at least give a little back to society. Dont you see your proposing "communism"? Wait, its biblical brotherhood and responsibility and work ethic, it will be ok with the conservatives, NVM. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to Corehhi
said by Corehhi:Communism doesn't work so the military commune idea will fail. The number of police you have to hire to keep them in the "fence" out weighs any benefit. Oops just described all public housing. Then they get no food. A little bit of pain and they will straighten up. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to workfare
said by workfare :
over 98% of the state run programs force "clients" to work, even if it is a BULLSHIT JOB--- UNLESS they can prove some kind of disability.. then their status changes.
And you have no idea how easy that it. Obesity, arthritis, heart conditions, mental disability, PTSD, diabetes, alcoholism (liver), pregnancy, maternity leave, etc.
Here are guaranteed conditions. »www.ssa.gov/disability/professio···ings.htm |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:said by openbox9:Once sufficient skills have been taught, these communes Dont you see your proposing "communism"? Wait, its biblical brotherhood and responsibility and work ethic, it will be ok with the conservatives, NVM. Considering my choice of words, yes I realize its communism on an extremely limited scale. My logic is that if the taxpayers are going to continue to be burdened by those that wish to abuse the existing social system, we the taxpayers should lessen that burden however possible. Instead of my tax money being flushed down the drain paying for the lazy who are happy to leech off of Uncle Sam with their new cars and big screen televisions (yes, I know welfare recipients like this), I would like to see them at least make an effort to pay dividends to those who continue funding their lifestyles. Nothing is free in life. Now before anyone jumps me, I do realize that there are many legitimate recipients of our social welfare system. I do not have a problem with society supporting the disabled and those that may be out of a job, but are actively searching for employment and/or bettering themselves. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by openbox9: Instead of my tax money being flushed down the drain paying for the lazy who are happy to leech off of Uncle Sam with their new cars and big screen televisions (yes, I know welfare recipients like this), I would like to see them at least make an effort to pay dividends to those who continue funding their lifestyles. Nothing is free in life. Now before anyone jumps me, I do realize that there are many legitimate recipients of our social welfare system. I do not have a problem with society supporting the disabled and those that may be out of a job, but are actively searching for employment and/or bettering themselves. Those people aren't poor, they live very comfortably. You know anyone with an off the books job qualifies for welfare. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2
1 edit | said by patcat88:You know anyone with an off the books job qualifies for welfare. Fully aware of that, from seeing it firsthand. It's disgusting! Those are the people I'm primarily speaking of that need to return something to society.
Edit: Or better yet, we should clean up the damn welfare system. Just like the USF and many other government programs froth with waste and abuse. |
|
