They exploit the OBVIOUS benefits of Tax evasion.

It did Capone in....and it may yet do Google, Apple, Microsoft and others in, too.

Australia's ATO isn't letting it slide anymore.

4.7 Billion?   That's about how much Apple has NOT paid the Australian Government in taxes in each 15 years or so.

There's your reason why some big boys are so bloody profitable.

This wonderful 'global economy' needs to get its ducks in a row and not allow tax havens and tax dodging.

And a thorough clean out of government...top to bottom, and every single branch: local, state and federal.

Yes, I am.  If you spend a billion dollars building something, and a hundred thousand dollars operating it, a revenue stream of two hundred thousand a year gives you a fucking fantastic operating margin.  It also gives you ten thousand years to make back your initial investment.

Operating margins are just that, operating margins.  40% for the cable communications services is everything they do to operate it, off the revenue it brings in.  Capital investments are in another ledger, they do not get added to the operational costs.  They have very high investment costs, and very low operating costs, as opposed to something like a grocery store, which is mostly operational and needs relatively small margins on their employees and stocking costs to pay back the investment of the building.

Don't get me wrong, Comcast is making money.  They're actually making good money, so is Verizon.  They're just not making unreasonable money, net margins in the 10% range aren't obscene, they're average.  Most ISP's are making half that.  Software companies of a similar standing are making 20% and better, so are financial institutions.  There are a great many industries where 10% would be one of the least successful companies, not the most.

Definitely, individual liberty and personal responsibility.  You're free to pay $1200 bucks for your iphone if you really want to...

Indeed? They get triple paid. For example: From Google, from the user of Google's service and from the Federal subsidy. You try getting that at your job.

Then there's this:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102670331

I do have to agree that Return on Investment is a much better yardstick that Operating Margins, investment has to be considered.  Making $10 on a $1 investment is entirely different than making $10 on a $1,000 investment, yet the operating margin could be the same.  As for the rest of it, I honestly have no idea.

This is just hyperbole.  You want to hate them, but you don't really have much of a cause.

Corn growers get paid three times too, they sell the corn for food, the stalks for feed, and get subsidies from uncle.  The kernals and the stalks are two different products though, just like google's bandwidth and your bandwidth are two different products.  IP creators get paid hundreds, thousands, millions, and even billions of times, as their property is copied and sold over and over.

If you want to argue the idiocy of subsidies that don't even promote what they're supposedly for, I'd love to spend several hours shredding the government on it's stupidity, I can do it from memory.  You can't blame Comcast for the stupidity of the populace though, electing people because they'll give us things is our problem.  People would shit bricks if the national politicians actually went after all the credits and tax breaks we throw at industries and individuals.

psycho understands - we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.

Ok. I haven't really researched their finances and that was one of the first things I found. I will defer to you.

However, before I get sidetracked, I think that Comcast and other ISPs abuse the fact that they are either regional monopolies or noncompetitive oligopolies. I think that net neutrality is a good first step in curbing some of their abuses. However, I would like to see a highly competitive U.S. ISP market with many competitors in each regional market. Now maybe that's impossible, because as you pointed out, Comcast is a dog when it comes to ROI. Comcast maybe even be the most efficient and innovative of the all ISPs and still have a hard time making much money even with monopoly power. Though it's just as likely they are either average or a laggard since they don't compete in the majority of their markets with a similar service.  

So if possible we do need to encourage competition just to weed out the weaker, less efficient and less innovative companies. If competition isn't feasible, because it's already tough to be an ISP, then doesn't that mean that regulations are the next best alternative to monopoly abuses? That is why I support net neutrality.

Competition is hard, but not impossible.  Our main problem is that we write large quantities of laws and regulations making the barrier to entry even higher, but don't prevent large companies from simply buying local networks to expand into new markets.  Comcast, like most large ISP's, didn't expand, they purchased.  They do massive infrastructure work in the form of upgrades, but most of their market expansion was through purchasing existing networks.

Setting up even a local ISP costs a lot of money.  If you're running fiber through suburbia, you can spend a thousand plus a residence just to lay the ground work.  Yes, it really is that expensive.  If there is already a competing network and you expect to get half the people, you're doubling the payback on that initial cost.  It's estimated that Google blew a hundred million bucks to get fiber up in Kansas.

Wireless can be done cheaper, but then it also has more issues.  There are only so many frequencies to go around, competing wireless networks can interfere with each other and saturation problems are exacerbated by the fact that all those wireless signals are mashing together and leading to data corruption.  They end up being much slower than they could be once you get a handle on all the issues.

The entry barrier, even in a perfect free market, is exceptionally high.  Which is why only major cities have great internet, they're the only markets rich enough to be attractive targets.  A city under a hundred thousand is never going to be a good market, and rural America is just plain fucked.

I'm actually against disallowing a national competitor from buying up networks to expand into monopoly situations on principle alone regardless of the effect, but an argument can be made that the FTC doing it's legally obligated job would help with this by forcing companies like Comcast to compete to grow their user base, instead of simply replacing existing providers.  My expectation is that it would indeed lead to more competition, but that the realities of the limitations on a monopoly would result in better long term advancement, than the reduced margins from competition would be able to pay for.

Here's an interesting opinion piece based on First Amendment considerations.  I'm inclined to agree with it.

From what I gather his line of thinking is:

1. The Supreme Court has ruled TV and radio are first amendment speakers, so they have free speech rights. ISPs are like TV and radio stations (or are TV and radio stations because it delivers TV and radio services), so ISPs have a right to free speech.

2. TV, radio, and news papers reach a mass audience, as do ISPs. TV, radio and news papers can make editorial decisions and can bring their audiences only information approved by the editor. The Supreme Court has ruled this is fine. Since these first amendment entities can make editorial decisions without repercussions, and ISPs also have free speech rights and reach a mass audience they can make editorial decisions on which information to provide to their customers.

3. Since net neutrality requires equal treatment of all information then it is preventing "editorializing" the internet by ISPs, so it is an unconstitutional limit on the first amendment.

I disagree, because net neutrality isn't preventing free speech it's preventing ISPs setting up toll booths on the internet.

When the big ISPs, as first amendment speakers, demanded Netflix (which since it is the digital equivalent of a TV station should also be a first amendment speaker) pay the ISPs to ensure quality connections to their customers, they are not editorializing Netflix's the internet. They are not saying watching Orange is the New Black, is a degenerate act that soils their precious internet tubes, which they must prevent from happening. They are making a business decision. Netflix can you can only access our customers through us, so Netflix needs to pay us money to access them. I don't see the free speech that net neutrality is preventing. However, if it does prevent free speech by preventing ISPs from censoring content, couldn't other first amendment speakers, sue the ISPs since they are now the ones harming free speech?

The argument has nothing to do with 'censorship' and everything to do with the 'press clause'.  It boils down to whether the answer to his initial question is A or B.

And the assumption that net neutrality (as enforced by the FCC) requires equal treatment of all information may be wishful thinking.  Once the FCC is the arbiter, there is nothing to prevent the FCC from regulating content.

To put the tinfoil hat on, what they've failed to achieve using the IRS and the FEC, they hope to accomplish via the FCC. Wouldn't be the first time a seemingly desirable notion (who doesn't like the ideas of fairness & 'neutrality'?) has been co-opted by government for other purposes.

Well if it is really as simple as just his first question then answer to the initial question is that it is more like a phone than cable TV.

When I watch cable TV, I can only watch what is in my package and the company that provides that package has negotiated for access to all of that content. If the negotiations break down, then those channels aren't available.

When I use a phone a dial a number and then have access to the other party as long as they have paid their bill. The other end of the connection can be in another nation and have nothing to do with the phone company, unless I am calling the phone company or a company it owns. Whatever the other party is providing when I call their line isn't controlled by the phone company, nor does the phone company negotiate for access to certain  phone numbers. There are no packages of numbers, I can call any number.

When I use the internet I basically dial a number (type in a url, which is transformed into a number - the website's ip address) and as long as the company has access to the internet I am able to access that party. The other end of the nation can be in another nation and usually it has nothing to do with the ISP, unless I am contacting the ISP or one of its subsidiaries. Whatever the other party is providing when I access their site isn't controlled by the ISP, nor does the ISP negotiate for access to websites. There are no packages of numbers I can access, I can access any website.

You're not accessing paid commercial content by phoning someone.  Except for those 1-900 calls.

I think you really need to back up and ask the question, "Why does the FCC feel compelled to seize control of "net neutrality?"  Bigger issue than arguing the legal justification.  It ain't to protect me from an increase in my Netflix bill.