Federal appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules

[DGuller]

FSB safe house has good internet.

I don't need to be in the safe house.

[Ed Anger]

I'm not answering your skype requests....comrade.

[The Minsky Moment]

Decades Of Failed Promises From Verizon: It Promises Fiber To Get Tax Breaks... Then Never Delivers

. . . Verizon is blaming landlords, but as the Verge points out, when someone made a big stink on the radio recently about the lack of FiOS in his apartment, Verizon contacted him the very next day, and had service at his apartment within 3 weeks. The simple fact is that Verizon has been trying its damnest to get out of the wired business altogether. Back when Ivan Seidenberg was in charge, he made a giant bet on fiber, which is why Verizon became such a national leader in broadband with FiOS -- a service that people really seem to love. However, Wall Street has always hated it, because it's capital intensive, and Wall St. recognizes that without any real competition in the broadband space, Verizon can avoid investing in such infrastructure upgrades, and just swim in larger profits while America's broadband infrastructure suffers and falls further and further behind other countries. Once Seidenberg left, the beancounters quickly took over and looked for ways to stop all that investment. Why invest in the future if there are no competitors to push you to do so? .

Not sure how accurate it is, but apparently Verizon lobbied for several billion dollars in tax breaks to provide high speed internet to Pennsylvania and New York but failed to deliver even close to their initial claims.

There is some kernels of truth here but it is definitely an anti-Verizon spin.
In NYC lots of people live in apartment buildings and yes it is the case that either the co-op/condo or the landlord has to make arrangements to bring the the service into the building.  The fiber doesn't just magically leap into private property.

AS for the broader economic point -- ", Wall Street has always hated it, because it's capital intensive, and Wall St. recognizes that without any real competition in the broadband space, Verizon can avoid investing in such infrastructure upgrades, and just swim in larger profits while America's broadband infrastructure suffers "  -- invoking the "Wall Street" bogeyman is always good for selling copy but the heat-to-light ratio of this analysis is on the high side. Laying fiber IS capital intensive -- brutally so.  There is "real competition" because everywhere Verizon offers FIOS there is a least one other major player.  But the problem for FIOS as a business is not so much vigorous competition but that there just isn't enough demand for its high-end product (ultra fast connections) to recoup all those expenses at a profit.  If enough Americans will willing to pay for 100 -1000 mbit speeds at a price reflecting the cost of the infrastructure and maintenance, then Verizon would keep building.  But most Americans are like Ed and others here and content with much less -- and quite rationally so beause even bandwidth intensive uses like HD video streaming don't require anywhere near that bandwidth.

What this means for Verizon's business can be seen very starkly in their last published quarterly results.
Here are the operating margins for their two key business segments;
Wireless:  33.8%
Wireline:  1.6%

It might be objected that looking at operating margin treats FIOS unfairly because of the big non-cash depreciation charges.  But the EBITDA margins are just are slanted towards wireless - the wireless EBITDA margins are over 50% (!) compared to a little over 20% for wireline.

One doesn't need to conjure dark conspiracy theories about big bad "Wall Street" here.  It's pretty obvious why Verizon is pursuing a strategy of directing investment to wireless at the expense of the wireline business.  They would have to be foolish not to.

[Grey Fox]

That's what "Wall Street" means. It's the pursuit of cheap & easy profits over profits coming from the improvement of infrastructures for the common good.

[The Minsky Moment]

That's what "Wall Street" market capitalism means. It's the pursuit of cheap & easy profits over profits coming from the improvement of infrastructures for the common good losses.

Marked up for accuracy.

[Maximus]

[crazy canuck]

No wonder Max wins all the FPS multiplayer games.

[derspiess]

Here at work I get a whopping .47Mbps down.  They're throttling the hell out of us.  And we call ourselves a technology company

I'd be better off downloading large files on my phone.

[DGuller]

[Grey Fox]

That's what "Wall Street" market capitalism means. It's the pursuit of cheap & easy profits over profits coming from the improvement of infrastructures for the common good losses.

Marked up for accuracy.

Yes, wall street.

It's such a deplorable state of things.

[DGuller]

That's what "Wall Street" market capitalism means. It's the pursuit of cheap & easy profits over profits coming from the improvement of infrastructures for the common good losses.

Marked up for accuracy.

The problem is that market capitalism has never been fair to private actors investing in capital-intensive infrastructure.  There are a host of positive externalities that they can't cash in to recoup their investment.

[alfred russel]

That's what "Wall Street" market capitalism means. It's the pursuit of cheap & easy profits over profits coming from the improvement of infrastructures for the common good losses.

Marked up for accuracy.

The problem is that market capitalism has never been fair to private actors investing in capital-intensive infrastructure.  There are a host of positive externalities that they can't cash in to recoup their investment.

There is a strong case that internet access should be a public service. When you think about what the government spends on education, public health, job search assistance, etc., the achievement / dollar by making sure everyone has good internet is probably high in comparison.

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem is that market capitalism has never been fair to private actors investing in capital-intensive infrastructure.  There are a host of positive externalities that they can't cash in to recoup their investment.

I don't think that is the issue here.
Let's say there is $100 billion available for use in the tri-state area - is the highest and best use for those funds really to lay high speed fiber optic cable?  What about transport infrastructure or education or any one of a hundred other priorities?
The only positive externality I can see that could result from this is that if there are commercial enterprises in the city paying premium for custom high speed connections they could save some IT $$  if such connections become ubiquitous and relatively low cost.  It's not the most compelling case.

[Syt]

And what's that about data limits? 

[The Brain]

I could have 1000 but since 100 comes free with the apartment I don't bother.

I also have a second independent broadband connection. For safety.