There's No Evidence Comcast's New 'Network Investment' Is Because of Net Neutrality Repeal or Tax Cuts (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Comcast issued a statement last week claiming that the government's new tax plan and the end of net neutrality will directly result in a dramatic spike in Comcast's network investment and job creation plans. If you look at Comcast's capital investments over the past 12 months and calculate continued investment growth at current rates -- you'll find that Comcast was already on pace to spend more than $50 billion on investment over the next five years.

Journalists that could be bothered to take a closer look at Comcast's earnings discovered that the company's promise of $50 billion in investment over five years is something that would have occurred regardless of the net neutrality repeal or Comcast's shiny new tax cut. "In Q3 2017, the most recent quarter, Comcast's capital expenditures were $2.4 billion," noted Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin. "Continuing to spend at that rate, even if Comcast doesn't increase spending to account for inflation, would push Comcast to $9.6 billion a year or $48 billion over the next five years." Indeed; if you look at Comcast's capital investments over the past 12 months and calculate continued investment growth at current rates -- you'll find that Comcast was already on pace to spend more than $50 billion on investment over the next five years.

Comments

psh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs facts. Trump's useful band of idiots would gobble up any bit of PR possible to stick it to the libtards.

If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Should we make up stories and believe those instead?

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[_Sharp'r_]

Yeah, Comcast is generally a lame company, but to say an official announcement by the decision maker about the reasons for a particular decision equals "no evidence" is quite a biased stretch, especially when the counter evidence is a guess by someone who wasn't involved in the decision.

So sure, Comcast was going to spend some money on infrastructure anyway. The article stretches to get $48 Billion and the press release says "spend well in excess of $50 billion" with more announcements coming in their January earnings report, so even at the most generous, there is still a gap there. The part of the same press release they skipped over of course was that Comcast also announced "special $1,000 bonuses to more than one hundred thousand eligible frontline and non-executive employees." in the same press release. If you read the press release, that's the part most specifically attributed to the tax cuts and the FCC rule change. The infrastructure plans read as an add-on, so this is mostly much ado about nothing. But hey, these "reporters" will do just about anything to be able to publish something they can cast into an anti-Trump narrative of some sort.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Large tax breaks to corporations generally equate to those companies spending between 10 and 20% of the initial take on employees wages and bonus's. This is already known. The larger portion goes to dividends for stock holders and the rest is company cash assets. The fact that Comcast is claiming that the investment they have already been making is now due to the end of net neutrality is absurd at any level. I can claim that I'll pay my electric bill for the rest of the year because of net neutrality, so what.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The consent decree imposed on Comcast for the NBCUniversal merger is set to expire soon. However, there is a lot of risk the federal government may extend it. Since Trump seems susceptible to flattery/buttering up, giving him credit for things seems a cheap way to curry favor.

Certainly, their statement should be taken with a grain of salt.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[ShanghaiBill]

Comcast is in business to make money. The tax "reform" and the repeal of NN mean that Comcast's activities are likely to lead to higher profits and higher ROI, so it is rational for them to invest in expanding their business.

However, that investment is probably better spent buying up competitors rather than rolling out new infrastructure.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, Comcast is generally a lame company, but to say an official announcement by the decision maker about the reasons for a particular decision equals "no evidence" is quite a biased stretch,

No, it is not even a short stretch. Only a compleat idiot (look it up) would believe something because there was a press release about it. The rest of your comment is thus utterly invalidated by simple common sense, and not just that you shouldn't listen to anything said by anyone who just said something so blatantly false, but that the rest of it is predicated upon trusting the words of corporate PR flacks and officers. Lying to you is literally part of their jobs. Looks like it's working brilliantly on you.

If you read the press release, that's the part most specifically attributed to the tax cuts and the FCC rule change.

AT&T says the same thing, while cutting 2,000 jobs. I wonder how many jobs Comcast will cut? And I further wonder how many employees will actually get those bonuses. Comcast is literally known for not keeping their word.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

So no actual evidence, just holding your hands over your ears and shouting "I don't believe you!"

Seems pretty desperate, there.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[drinkypoo]

So no actual evidence, just holding your hands over your ears and shouting "I don't believe you!"

It is literally the opposite. There is no actual evidence that these corporations will do what they say they will, and ample [historical] evidence that they will not. In fact, the available evidence says that when they say they will do something, they will do something else. You know, like when we paid them hundreds of millions of dollars to build out the last mile, and they gave the money to their executives as bonuses instead.

Seems pretty desperate, there.

You seem pretty desperate to support their narrative. Shareholder, or employee?

Re: If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

So Comcast is going to spend 100 billion since they don't do what they say. This follows from your argument just as easily as saying Comcast will do nothing.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[next_ghost]

Payroll expenses are exempt from corporate taxes and investments are tax-deductible over an extended period of time. So explain to me how exactly do tax cuts help you pay for something that's tax-deductible anyway?

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Cyberax]

Why is it rational? Repeal of the NN means that they actually don’t need to invest more, as they can extract bigger profit from existing infrastructure.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to Breitbart

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Full Disclosure: I am a former network engineer for Comcast. Posting anonymously to avoid any possible career complications.

And this is right in line with the usual Comcast way of doing things.

I'll give you an example: Some of you may remember a few years back when AT&T made a big announcement about how they were going to spend a boatload of money to upgrade their network. This naturally had Comcast worried, since they were basically competing against AT&T in every single market they were in, so AT&T was always the most likely source to siphon off customers.

Well, after AT&T made that announcement, their share price fell.

So Comcast needed to keep pace. I know about what was going on because I was directly involved in actually implementing the infrastructure upgrades. They would have happened anyway, but the pace was accelerated due to AT&T's announcement. This was back when Comcast was just deploying DOCSIS 3.0 and turning on upstream channel-bonding. We were also quietly replacing alot of our old gear (mostly Cisco 7609's, 6500's, etc) with new gear.

You never heard a peep about it in the media because Comcast knew Wall Street wouldn't like it and they didn't want to adversely effect the share price.

So yeah, given what I experienced while I was employed by Comcast, the article is certainly well within the realm of possibility. They were going to do this shit anyway, but saw a way to combat some of the recent negative publicity by spinning it in a new light, and gambled that the announcement wouldn't hurt their stock price.

Re: If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? Payroll ADDS to the corporate tax burden. A lot. There's a reason why companies always try to outsource or use contractors.

From the IRS website:
"An employer must generally withhold incomeÂtaxes, withhold and pay social security and MedicareÂtaxes, and pay unemploymentÂtaxÂon wages paid to anÂemployee. An employer does not generally have to withhold or pay anyÂtaxesÂon payments to independent contractors."

People like you who argue based on made up facts that are so easy to verify are lazy and pathetic. I suspect you're a Clinton voter.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[sabbede]

If you disregard the official statement, then what? What makes a reporter's naive assumption about Comcast's investment trends any more meaningful?

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no evidence right now. They just announced it. Evidence is based on past history not something new. Just maybe, the exact increase has yet to even be determined.

Re: If we don't believe Comcast

[Zero__Kelvin]

You are an idiot. The taxes they withhold are a portion of the *employees* salary, not a portion of the companies profits.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no evidence yet because it hasn't happened yet.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't lay out your argument clearly so I'lll do it. You're saying that Comcast might not be lying because there's still an unaccounted 4% of the total and that might have been what they were talking about. And that since they made an official announcement we should trust them (it's 'evidence')

You're welcome.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Large tax breaks to corporations generally equate to those companies spending between 10 and 20% of the initial take on employees wages and bonus's. This is already known.

[citation needed]

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

So sure, Comcast was going to spend some money on infrastructure anyway. The article stretches to get $48 Billion and the press release says "spend well in excess of $50 billion" with more announcements coming in their January earnings report, so even at the most generous, there is still a gap there. The part of the same press release they skipped over of course was that Comcast also announced "special $1,000 bonuses to more than one hundred thousand eligible frontline and non-executive employees." in the same press release. If you read the press release, that's the part most specifically attributed to the tax cuts and the FCC rule change. The infrastructure plans read as an add-on, so this is mostly much ado about nothing. But hey, these "reporters" will do just about anything to be able to publish something they can cast into an anti-Trump narrative of some sort.

Have you considered the alternative, that Comcast and AT&T and others are praising the tax breaks an end to NN in a Pro-Trump way?
Why would they do that, you ask? Isn't it obvious that they prefer no regulation and free reign to try to extract maximum profits from their customers?

Re: If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha what a joker you are. Company profits and company-owed taxes are both extracted from the same pot-of-loot. Pik yo poison Bosco. What money the company does-not-earn the company cannot pay-out in either taxes or wages. Ponzi-scheme/speculative-investment naturally excepted !

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the narrative from Comcast worth investigating, to see if they're lying or not?
If they are not trustworthy, then it's interesting in light of lack of accountability and possible self-interest consequences and collateral damage.

Captcha: honest

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[ranton]

Large tax breaks to corporations generally equate to those companies spending between 10 and 20% of the initial take on employees wages and bonus's. This is already known.

[citation needed]

Correct, nowhere near 10-20% of large tax breaks goes to employees. Of the $300 billion companies saved from the 2004 Homeland Investment Act, about 92% of it went to shareholders in the form of share buybacks and dividends. The top 15 companies, who accounted for half of the repatriated money, cut 20,000 net jobs in the three years following the tax break.

But the remaining 8% didn't even all go to employees. I couldn't find exact figures, but some of that also went to capital purchases. At best you could say 5%-10% of large tax breaks go to employees, but even that is probably a bit high.

There is no honest debate on whether this tax bill will meaningfully boost the economy and help American workers. It won't. It will boost the stock market (or more likely already has) and create the illusion that the economy has improved, but that is about it.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[ranton]

There is no evidence yet because it hasn't happened yet.

What are you talking about? Do you think this is the first tax break for corporations, or the first repatriation attempt? We repatriated $300 billion in 2004, and we know what the companies did with it. The top 15 companies, which repatriated half of that $300 billion figure, cut 20,000 jobs in the next three years. 92% of the total repatriated money was simply given to shareholders in stock buybacks and dividends.

As for Comcast's specific case, the article shows how Comcast is already on pace to invest over $50 billion over the next five years, so there is ample evidence Comcast is not doing this because of the tax bill.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[ranton]

The article stretches to get $48 Billion and the press release says "spend well in excess of $50 billion" with more announcements coming in their January earnings report, so even at the most generous, there is still a gap there.

The article does not stretch to get to $48 billion, they use that figure to show that even if Comcast stops increasing their investments year over year they will invest $48 Billion over the next five years. Comcast's third quarter results, which were cited in the article, shows they have increased investment by 4.2% compared to 2016. If they continue that growth, they will invest $52 billion over the next five years. And even that is a pessimistic figure because it assumes Comcast's growth will remain constant and not accelerate.

There is no gap, and you are the one stretching to find a narrative where Comcast's stated motives are true. Plenty of corporations made similar claims for how they would spend the 2004 repatriated money, and in the end there were no significant increases in investment but were significant reductions in payroll. Likely because of the increased automation and mergers the repatriated money made possible.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[JackieBrown]

How so? Because Net Neutrailty set pricing structures?

Net Neutrality was sure a magical, all encompassing piece of regulation. Everything bad that happens from now to the end of time can be blamed on it being repealed and nothing good can be credited to it..

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[JackieBrown]

Seems pretty desperate, there.

You seem pretty desperate to support their narrative. Shareholder, or employee?

You seem just as desperate to fight their narrative. Competitor or whiny bitch?

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

So funny. These are the same companies that took taxpayer money to do things, didn't do anything, and had right wingers clamor to make excuses for them and shift blame on the people giving the money, and people still carry water for them.

Still continues to this day, eat it up bud. PR never lies !

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[ShanghaiBill]

they actually don’t need to invest more, as they can extract bigger profit from existing infrastructure.

Businesses aim to maximize profit. They do not set a profit cap and then try to extract it in the easiest way.

Re: If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. If things remain open and growth that wouldn't occur otherwise happens, then removing NN will be positive.

You can't start crediting everything to the repeal of NN (or vice versa). Politicians know that complex issues aren't clear and dry and rarely can be pointed to certain contributions (this was the gamble on global warming), so the argument of ambiguity is far too often used like a blanket (by both sides).

What you can do is look at historical trends, behaviors, etc. and if an obvious pattern emerges, it's pretty clear what the most likely case is even if it's not undeniable or potentially wrong and iterate on that as evidence is provided.

I look at cellular networks as a model of what to expect. Texting used to be charged as were phone calls because they were in demand, now it's all about data packages which have pretty much always been lackluster. Traditional land lined ISPs saw this pricing strategy was accepted by mass consumers then jumped on board and began introducing data caps.

For the other topic, if I were a large shareholder for a huge company I would be beyond thrilled for looser regulations and taxes because that means I'll be richer and I would probably do whatever I could to promote that. I would give out bonuses regularly for a few years (3 is enough to cover most position rotations) and let those bonuses continually decline, not even keeping pace with inflation so that within 5 years, the majority forgot about the issue, got there $1-2k bonus for a couple years, and now attribute the disappearance of shared wealth with "Well that's just how it goes I supppse." The timetable may need adjustment but the idea is quite simple: slow and gradual but win the long game. Wealthy people and those in power have realized this where their predecessors egos took over and now they're able to maintain wealth and power while staving off the masses.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

So no actual evidence, just holding your hands over your ears and shouting "I don't believe you!"

It is literally the opposite. There is no actual evidence that these corporations will do what they say they will, and ample [historical] evidence that they will not. In fact, the available evidence says that when they say they will do something, they will do something else. You know, like when we paid them hundreds of millions of dollars to build out the last mile, and they gave the money to their executives as bonuses instead.

Seems pretty desperate, there.

You seem pretty desperate to support their narrative. Shareholder, or employee?

Pot, meet kettle.

captcha: peddle apropos for a response to someone peddling bog-standard Marxist anti-corporate tripe.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[next_ghost]

Businesses aim to maximize profit. They do not set a profit cap and then try to extract it in the easiest way.

Corporate taxes are designed to encourage reinvesting profits (tax deductible) instead of shoveling them straight to the shareholders (not tax deductible). Lowering the corporate tax rate will result in less profit reinvesting and more shoveling to shareholders. But at least until the 2018 elections, there will be lots of PR hot air about investments, otherwise the GOP tax scam might get repealed before it even takes effect.

Re: If we don't believe Comcast

[next_ghost]

What are you talking about? Payroll ADDS to the corporate tax burden. A lot. There's a reason why companies always try to outsource or use contractors.

Do you understand the difference between corporate tax and payroll tax?

I suspect you're a Clinton voter.

Nope. I'm an EU citizen.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[KingMotley]

There is no honest debate on whether this tax bill will meaningfully boost the economy and help American workers. It won't. It will boost the stock market (or more likely already has) and create the illusion that the economy has improved, but that is about it.

So, you are saying that it will only boost the stock market. Which based on my last 12 months, my 401(k) and my separate stock account has grown by 21%. That's basically all the money I have saved over my lifetime is now 21% bigger, and the "only" thing it will do is increase it (assuming the same rate or better than last year) another 21%?

I think your logic here is pretty flawed because I'm an American worker, and I can tell you without a doubt that another 21% growth in my 401(k) and stock market accounts will meaningfully help me prepare for retirement someday, add to my rainy day cushion fund, and a not insignificant portion of it has already and will likely continue to go back into the economy.

In the past 3 months, I've bought a new house (which I haven't done in 25 years), upgraded all the fire detectors/carbon monoxide detectors with nest protects, replaced the thermostat with a nest thermostat, replaced (some) lighting with Philips Hue lights and replaced (some) CFLs with LEDs, bought 6 echo/echo dots, bought two bedroom sets, one couch, remodeled a bathroom, paid off my car loan in full, hired a contractor for some misc stuff, etc etc. So while I can't speak for everyone, I can definitely tell you that from my personal perspective you are dead wrong.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[dgatwood]

The fact that their infrastructure spending is predicted to be only 4% higher than you would expect by multiplying their typical expenditure by the time period means that the impact of those laws/policies was at most about $2B. So it might not prove that the Comcast folks are lying, but it proves that they're deliberately distorting the truth to an extent that is almost indistinguishable from lying.

Re: If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy fuck you're dumb and have no understanding of how taxes work at all. I suspect you're another tarded conservative.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[sabri]

Repeal of the NN means that they actually donâ(TM)t need to invest more

Wrong. The repeal of NN means that Comcast actually get to decide how they operate the network they just expanded with Comcast's $50,000,000,000 dollars, rather than having the government decide how Comcast's $50,000,000,000 dollars investment should be operated.

The government did not give Comcast $50,000,000,000 dollars, so the government does not get to say how those $50,000,000,000 dollars should be spent, or how Comcast offer services on their $50,000,000,000 dollars investment.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah, Comcast is generally a lame company, but to say an official announcement by the decision maker about the reasons for a particular decision equals "no evidence" is quite a biased stretch, especially when the counter evidence is a guess by someone who wasn't involved in the decision."

Actually it depends. Did they announce this and the reason to their shareholders in a shareholders meeting where they're legally required to be absolutely truthful, or did they make a press announcement to all the Joe Sixpacks of the world?

If the former, then they're in trouble since it means they lied to their shareholders the years prior saying that title 2 was not hindering innovation. Either they lied back then or they're lying now.

If the latter, then based on past experience we can safely assume Comcast is a lying sack of shit and reject their PR as non-evidence.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[sabbede]

First, it's at least $2B, and that's if and only if the author's assumptions about Comcast's pre-cut/pre-repeal plans were correct. That's a lot of money.

Second, it isn't their "typical expenditure" that was being used in the projection, it was their expenditure for one quarter and the rate of change from the two before it. For all anyone outside Comcast knows, they were planning to invest $0 over the next five years.

Third, since all of the data used in the author's projection is from the first three quarters of 2017, even if those projections are correct the conclusions are still wrong.

Why? I'll tell you. Comcast looked at the political landscape and figured it was probably getting a tax cut and that the FCC would repeal NN, so they started the ball rolling, knowing that they could cut back if things turned out differently.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[ranton]

I think your logic here is pretty flawed because I'm an American worker, and I can tell you without a doubt that another 21% growth in my 401(k) and stock market accounts will meaningfully help me prepare for retirement someday, add to my rainy day cushion fund, and a not insignificant portion of it has already and will likely continue to go back into the economy.

First off, half of all households have no money in the stock market, so the people most in need of economic improvement gain nothing from stock market increases. 80% of the benefits go to the top 10%, with half of that going to the top 1%.

Other than not investing enough in the first place, the second biggest problem regular people have with the stock market is being too fixated on short term gains and losses. At least 95% of people, if not closer to 99% of people, shouldn't care at all what the stock market does in any given year. It should only matter what happens to it over a 10-30 year period. And for the most part no tax plan will ever have a meaningful effect on the stock market over those periods, unless of course it is bad enough to completely tank the economy for decades.

Sure some people who put short term savings into the stock market would have done well in the last year, but that same mentality would have made them lose half their money during the last recession. Saying that you bought a house with gains from your 100% stock savings plan isn't much different than saying you bought a house with lottery winnings. I mean, I'm glad for you, but that type of thinking very often destroys savings and ruins lives.

Your retirement savings 20 years from now would be the same whether or not the stock market rose 2% or 20% in 2017. In the long term it is based on macro trends which have nearly nothing to do with tax policy. That is why reputable economists say this tax plan will likely improve the economy by 0.1-0.3% in the next few years, and less than that if not having a negative effect after 2020. In the end your retirement savings in 2030 will be the same with or without this tax plan.

In the past 3 months, I've bought a new house (which I haven't done in 25 years), upgraded all the fire detectors/carbon monoxide detectors with nest protects, replaced the thermostat with a nest thermostat, replaced (some) lighting with Philips Hue lights and replaced (some) CFLs with LEDs, bought 6 echo/echo dots, bought two bedroom sets, one couch, remodeled a bathroom, paid off my car loan in full, hired a contractor for some misc stuff, etc etc. So while I can't speak for everyone, I can definitely tell you that from my personal perspective you are dead wrong.

Unless you cashed out retirement savings to buy all of that, this tax plan had nothing to do with any of this. If you did cash out your retirement savings for this then 2017 definitely worked well for you, but that was just luck. Plenty of people hoping to put a down payment for a house in 2008 through the sale of stocks had the opposite luck.

Re: If we don't believe Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Bro you lost, you got hit with facts and that destroyed your argument. Now your left with nothing but but but but buts....

Either come with facts or stfu.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Large tax breaks to corporations generally equate to those companies spending between 10 and 20% of the initial take on employees wages and bonus's.

[Citation needed]. There have been a couple of high profile raises to $15/hr (which turns out to be less of a change than you would think as a percentage of salary) and a few high profile one-time bonuses. These have been high-profile precisely because the vast majority of (esp. large) companies aren't changing incentive structures at all (maybe 5% of the Fortune500). And, they come exclusivey from heavily regulated industries (e.g. banking) or otherwise had pending regulatory decisions (e,g, AT&T) before the Trump administration.

Re: If we don't believe Comcast

[Jesus H Rolle]

Only a compleat idiot (look it up)

I looked it up. compleat adjective & verb: archaic spelling of complete. Interesting. Thanks for the trivia.

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[shess]

Large tax breaks to corporations generally equate to those companies spending between 10 and 20% of the initial take on employees wages and bonus's. This is already known. The larger portion goes to dividends for stock holders and the rest is company cash assets. The fact that Comcast is claiming that the investment they have already been making is now due to the end of net neutrality is absurd at any level. I can claim that I'll pay my electric bill for the rest of the year because of net neutrality, so what.

Weirdly enough, an equivalent tax break directed at payroll tax offsets would go 100% to employee wages!

[OK, no, the company would probably drop top-line wages due to the bump in bottom-line wages, but a pithy statement with a caveat like that isn't as pithy.]

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[Cyberax]

Ok. I keep offering this bet to conservatives. Right now my house is served only by Comcast. I bet you $10000 that in 2 years I won't get any new competition offering unmetered Internet at least at 50MBps speed. I can even make it easier - I bet that I won't get better performance than I have right now from Comcast. Deal?

Before NN repeal the only way Comcast was able to get more profit was to build out the network, providing better speed and coverage. Now they also can raise the price for Internet content providers without investing in their network. Guess what is going to happen?

Re:If we don't believe Comcast

[AutodidactLabrat]

Large tax breaks to corporations generally equate to those companies spending between 10 and 20% of the initial take on employees wages and bonus's. This is already known.

And yet that never happened under Raygun or Bush 41.
Mmm, sounds like another talking point from Kochsucker's inc..

Birinyiâ(TM)s ruler

[mattwarden]

If a company spent $x the past 5 years, obviously they will spend $x the next 5 years!

Read that instead

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/12/13/tech/ajit-pais-new-internet

Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

- Comcast executives make even more money to spend snorting cocaine and partying.

- Comcast customers keep getting screwed at least as much as they were before.

- Conservatives cheer at the top of their lungs.

Re:Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a conservative, and I hate Comcast, support net neutrality. However I also support tax cuts for corps. I don't have any illusion that all their tax saving will help the CEO's more than the employee's or their customers. But the bottom line is that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. If you want to compete we need to lower that.

The USA ranks number 1 in prison incarceration, debt, and taxes. This is not a good thing.

I notice you were quick to snipe on Conservatives, but were you able to criticize your buddy Obama when he gave a huge bone to the corporate CEO's of the insurance companies under the pretense that he was helping poor people. The honest to god truth is there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. they all support their corporate campaign donors. Conservatives and Liberals need to ban together, find common ground and stop supporting the party oligarchs.

Re: Outcome

[Pop69]

You have to pay for all that military spending somehow. Did you think the money grew on trees? It comes from taxes and deficit spending.

Re: Outcome

[omnichad]

The person you replied to appeared to have their own brain. Why are you spouting off standard partisan talking points? Perhaps they aren't in favor of military spending? After all, it's not a fiscally conservative thing to do.

Re:Outcome

[Daemonik]

I'm a conservative, and I hate Comcast, support net neutrality. However I also support tax cuts for corps. I don't have any illusion that all their tax saving will help the CEO's more than the employee's or their customers. But the bottom line is that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. If you want to compete we need to lower that.

The USA ranks number 1 in prison incarceration, debt, and taxes. This is not a good thing.

I notice you were quick to snipe on Conservatives, but were you able to criticize your buddy Obama when he gave a huge bone to the corporate CEO's of the insurance companies under the pretense that he was helping poor people. The honest to god truth is there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. they all support their corporate campaign donors. Conservatives and Liberals need to ban together, find common ground and stop supporting the party oligarchs.

I've never understood the Conservative stance on the US's place in the world regarding taxes.. We're told socialism is teh evil, because high taxes.. but by your constant harping Democratic Capitalism has led to the highest taxes in the world. Yet most socialist countries seem to have universal health care and a pretty enviable quality of life in exchange for their high taxes compared to the US where we get more prisons, economic serfdom to a new Oligarchy and a forever war. And before anyone tosses out Venezuela or another failed dictatorship that cloaked itself in socialism, there's plenty of failed democracy's to pair that against, so don't even bother.

As for the tax breaks for insurance companies, nobody liked it then either, but it was the only way to get wide spread health care without the Republican nuclear explosion that expanding Medicare universally and having single payer would have done, so we accepted it as an at the time necessary mess. Thank a deity of your choice that Republicans are saving us from that, by doing even more to destroy health care accessibility and likely imploding Medicare at the same time, to pay for their cuts to the wealthy.

Re:Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one problem with your statement on taxes, that many seem to gloss over. Constantly glossing over the number that the rate is stated. However, does anyone actually bother to look at the actual rates that are being paid.

It is dishonest to keep saying that we have the highest rate, without actually accounting for what the corporations actually pay. That second part is important and is in financials for publicly traded companies. The amount of loopholes and skirting around (tax avoidance) is quite big.

"Lowering taxes" isn't going to do anything. With the loop holes around, you as a conservative as well as corporations are going to continue with the "the taxes are too high" when the very system we have shows that their actual rates being paid is far lower. Double Irish is one well-known tax avoidance strategy. Look, every rate other than paying 0 is too high for those individuals. You can't compete nor maintain a 1st world nation with everyone trying to skirt, but then sticking their hands out and say "subsidize me!"

I will concede on one point you made .... partially. Not that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, but there isn't much. The parties today are close in political spectrums on both social and economic scales and glad that you can see that and don't buy into the false left-right dichotomy that is parroted in the US. However, there is a noticeable difference between conservatives and liberals (as long as we're in Civics 101 and not rhetoric 101).

Re:Outcome

[TheRaven64]

"Lowering taxes" isn't going to do anything

That's not quite true. Lowering the nominal tax rate will reduce the differential in actual rate between companies that engage in active tax avoidance and those that don't. That may end up making smaller businesses (that can't afford armies of accountants and lawyers to figure out the loopholes) slightly more competitive.

Re:Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

"But the bottom line is that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world that companies find every possible loophole to avoid paying."

There, fixed that for you. In the end you lowered corporate tax while leaving the loopholes where they were. There's no incentive for the companies to start paying their tax even at the lower rate if they can keep stashing it abroad. (Which they can.)

Also you're not going to compete any better if most of the tax cuts just go to the CEO and other particular leeches in the company.

Re: Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Most socialist countries with universal health care have high personal income tax rates. Corporate income taxes don't make much sense. Who gets hurt first when the corporation needs to pay the tax bill? My UK co-workers are paying close to 50%. There would be a revolt if the middle class tax rate was that high here in the US.

Re:Outcome

[gtall]

Starting with Reagan, Republican philosophy started being divorced from relevant statistical data. It only got worse during G. W.'s tenure. Then the Demos decided they too wanted some of that, so we had Obama. Now we have...well...you can see the results.

Re:Outcome

[gtall]

Yes, and it will also lead to everyone and their uncle's dog declaring themselves to be a pass-through corporation. The stupidity of putting this in the tax code can be seen with Kansas. Brownback recently skated out of the state to he didn't have to view the carnage he created.

Re:Outcome

[GrumpySteen]

But the bottom line is that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

You might want to look up the corporate tax rate in the UAE before you repeat talking points that you heard from Fox news and the GOP.

The bottom line is that you're repeating lies.

Re:Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a conservative, and I hate Comcast, support net neutrality. However I also support tax cuts for corps. I don't have any illusion that all their tax saving will help the CEO's more than the employee's or their customers. But the bottom line is that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. If you want to compete we need to lower that.

We don't need to compete with that, the US is doing fine. Notice the economy not collapsing? That happened before Trump.

In fact, the worst times for our economy have been after tax cuts and other abnegations.

The USA ranks number 1 in prison incarceration, debt, and taxes. This is not a good thing.

You built it.

I notice you were quick to snipe on Conservatives, but were you able to criticize your buddy Obama when he gave a huge bone to the corporate CEO's of the insurance companies under the pretense that he was helping poor people.

The litany of left-wing gripes over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exists. From all the compromises over placating the anti-abortion front, to failing to provide a single-payer public option, to not actually being healthcare reform, but you know who spent 6 years passing fake repeal votes, then couldn't manage to come up with a plan?

You know who.

The honest to god truth is there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. they all support their corporate campaign donors. Conservatives and Liberals need to ban together, find common ground and stop supporting the party oligarchs.

And yet Conservatives will embrace the corrupt oligarchs who lie, or when they're truthful, embrace bigotry and nonsense, so what are we going to do?

Re: Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

"As for the tax breaks for insurance companies, nobody liked it then either, but it was the only way to get wide spread health care"

Health Insurance is not the same thing as health care. And there were other ways but the Dems won't support single payer options.

Which is amusing to me. Dems supposedly favor big government and hate public corporations. Repubs love the Corps but hate the "socialist" programs. Except when it comes to healthcare, where the GOP is in love with Social medicine and the Dems are in love with Big Insurance.

Re:Outcome

[swb]

There was an interview on NPR where NPR's expert said the Kansas thing with pass through corporations wasn't going to happen with this tax bill. They discussed at some length, including interviewing an econ professor from Kansas.

I don't understand why the tax code even has "pass through corporations". I can see some consideration given to corporations with 5 or fewer employees to acknowledge that its a legal structure minus most of the economic structure of a corporation, but past that it just seems like a tax dodge or loophole-ism put in their because the principal beneficiary has lobbying strength (lawyers, accountants, etc).

Re:Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

your counterargument is the tax rate for one country?

Re: Outcome

[110010001000]

He doesn't have a brain at all. "If you want to compete we need to lower that [the corporate tax rate]." Is he saying American corporations aren't competitve???? The American corporation is doing VERY VERY WELL. The market has been going through the roof. Corporate income is at an all time high. The tax money is going to come from somewhere, because the "conservatives" are going to spend more and more. Where do you think the tax money is going to come from? Increased corporate profits? You better hope so, otherwise it is coming out of YOUR paycheck.

Re:Outcome

[next_ghost]

I'm a conservative, and I hate Comcast, support net neutrality. However I also support tax cuts for corps. I don't have any illusion that all their tax saving will help the CEO's more than the employee's or their customers. But the bottom line is that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. If you want to compete we need to lower that.

Except that corporate taxes are specifically designed to encourage reinvesting profits (tax deductible) instead of shoveling them straight to the shareholders (not tax deductible). Comparing the tax rate to the rest of the world is irrelevant. The original tax rate was reasonable so lowering it will only hurt the economy in the long run.

Re:Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet most socialist countries seem to have universal health care and a pretty enviable quality of life in exchange for their high taxes compared to the US where we get more prisons, economic serfdom to a new Oligarchy and a forever war.

Why would the people who vote against high taxes be bothered by "more prisons"?
The convict class don't pay taxes anyway.
And the "socialist countries"--the successful European ones, anyway--don't need so much military investment, since the US is protecting them.

Re:Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that corporate taxes are specifically designed to encourage reinvesting profits (tax deductible) instead of shoveling them straight to the shareholders (not tax deductible).

Therein lies the problem. Where can I find a political party who will design tax laws to pay for the cost of government, instead of to control people's behavior?

Re:Outcome

[next_ghost]

Therein lies the problem. Where can I find a political party who will design tax laws to pay for the cost of government, instead of to control people's behavior?

Look up a list of countries whose economy is about to collapse. The party that's been running the government for the past 5+ years is the one you're looking for.

Re:Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Therein lies the problem. Where can I find a political party who will design tax laws to pay for the cost of government, instead of to control people's behavior?

Look up a list of countries whose economy is about to collapse. The party that's been running the government for the past 5+ years is the one you're looking for.

I've read this sentence several times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say.
Are you blaming Democrats or something for failure of other countries?
What countries are about to collapse? North Korea maybe?
please give examples and add to the discussion

Re:Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank a deity of your choice that Republicans are saving us from that, by doing even more to destroy health care accessibility and likely imploding Medicare at the same time, to pay for their cuts to the wealthy.

Actually, the plan for next year is to kill or incapacitate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Not only do they want to kill grandma, but your friend with the kid with a medical condition. Oh, and the poor kids across town (already refused to fund Children's Health Insurance Program - it was much more important to give tax breaks to CEOs than to keep kids alive). And they want to eliminate, sorry, privatize your social security when you retire.
Also on their chopping block, in case nobody noticed, public education and the veterans administration.
Yes, we are headed full steam ahead to that cheerful dystopia where all cops and jails are privatized, and the pizza industry is controlled by the mob.
Did anyone notice the severe absence of republican deficit hawks when they passed a tax cut that raises the deficit by $1T?
Did anyone notice how republican's drone on about small government and states' rights, and then say the cap on SALT deductions under the new tax laws is because some states spend too much?

Re: Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Dems won't support single payer? Seriously? Just fuck you. Democrats have been trying for single payer since the fucking Clinton administration, and the only Republican who ever countenanced that idea was Trump. Stupid fucking ACs...

Re:Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

The US doesn't have the highest taxes in the world. Not even close.

Re:Outcome

[next_ghost]

I've read this sentence several times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say.
Are you blaming Democrats or something for failure of other countries?
What countries are about to collapse? North Korea maybe?
please give examples and add to the discussion

I'm saying that a political party which would pass tax legislation without carefully considering what kind of behavior it'd encourage and discourage will run the economy into the ground. Because every tax legislation has side effects that encourage or discourage specific behaviors. You can either accept that fact and try to use it for public good, or you can ignore it at your own peril.

Re: Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed.

Re: Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The OP said we have the highest corporate tax rate in the WORLD. someone replied no we don't, check the UAE before spouting lies. QED.

Re:Outcome

[Obfuscant]

I'm saying that a political party which would pass tax legislation without carefully considering what kind of behavior it'd encourage and discourage will run the economy into the ground.

I think his point was that much of current taxation is being driven by creating or controlling behaviors, not by legal justifications and then thought of what behaviors it would create. For example, EV tax rebates (or whatever they are called) are created not based on tax concerns, but the desire to socially engineer the use of EVs. The tax on people who didn't buy health insurance wasn't based on a desire to fund some legitimate government service, it was intended to force people to buy health insurance when they didn't want to. Every time increasing cigarette taxes becomes a topic, it isn't a side-effect of a need for more taxes, it's a need to control the behavior and then a "need" for the tax is created to justify it.

Gas taxes, ditto. Our fair state has been threatening to change the gas tax structure to a per-mile/where driven formula requiring a GPS tracker in every vehicle (which they deny can be used to create a database of who is where and when). This is not based on a desire to find funding for road maintenance (because the gas tax is already used for other things), but to convince people to drive different roads or at off-peak times so current congestion is reduced. The state wants to change driver behavior, and this tax is how to do that. What it pays for is irrelevant.

Because every tax legislation has side effects that encourage or discourage specific behaviors.

Of course. But that's different than admitting that a government wants to play social engineer by managing behaviors so they create a tax for that purpose.

Re: Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. If you're going to bullshit your credibility is shot. I'll stop reading here thanks.
https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-the-world-2017/

oh fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

vice.com

really...

Re:oh fuck off

[sunking2]

Vice will however be using their corporate tax savings to pay off more women they harassed.

Re: oh fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

Mad because it's not Fox News? All news stations lie and sell us fake news, except fox. Amiright?

NBC making fake news for Trump administration

[Anonymous Coward]

NBC making fake news for the Trump administration... Fascinating.

(Comcast owns NBCUniversal)

Re:NBC making fake news for Trump administration

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Fascinating... the fake news is coming just as the Trump's Department of Justice is deciding if Comcast lived up to the negotiated antitrust terms it agreed to when it purchased NBCUniversal.

These numbers cannot be correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Conventional Slashdot wisdom dictates that Comcast, and all monopoly internet ISPs, have not, do not, and will not invest money in infrastructure upgrades. The monopoly status means they can coast in a non-competitive environment with current network technology while nickel and diming everyone to death. So obviously wherever they got their information that Comcast is spending money on infrastructure is complete BS. It just doesn't fit the narrative.

Re:These numbers cannot be correct

[LordKronos]

Conventional Slashdot wisdom dictates that Comcast, and all monopoly internet ISPs, have not, do not, and will not invest money in infrastructure upgrades. The monopoly status means they can coast in a non-competitive environment with current network technology while nickel and diming everyone to death. So obviously wherever they got their information that Comcast is spending money on infrastructure is complete BS. It just doesn't fit the narrative.

Keyword being monopoly. Comcast has always done upgrades....in areas where they don't have a monopoly. I've got 3 choices for cable providers, and comcast has always done a good job of providing upgrades to have the fastest speed options available. But the problem is when they DO have a monopoly. I remember one of the stories that was here on slashdot years ago. Some town only had Comcast as an option, but Comcast wouldn't upgrade them beyond 10Mbps (this was a while ago, and I don't recall the exact numbers, so forgive me if it's off). Then the town decided to setup a community ISP with 100Mbps service and.....oh, what's that? Comcast is now busting ass to offer 100Mbps service in that area much sooner than the community ISP can be up and running? Wow, what a surprise!!!!!!

Re:These numbers cannot be correct

[Daemonik]

They were also simultaneously suing the community ISP to delay their build out while they were rushing to put in their own wire.

Motherboard and Ars

[Anonymous Coward]

Are both trying very hard to downplay any positive news and posit end-of-civilization hysteria on a daily basis all because of who is president.

Why are they still considered news sources any better than Breitbart and 4chan?

Re: Motherboard and Ars

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, Breitbart catches way more flak than they deserve simply because they're right-wing. Doesn't help with they sensationalize many things that they should just shut up about.

Re: Motherboard and Ars

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, Breitbart catches . . . flak . . . simply because they lie constantly.

FTFY. That's a more honest characterization.

Re: Motherboard and Ars

[omnichad]

Doesn't help with they sensationalize many things that they should just shut up about.

Are you sure that's not why they get flak in the first place? They make Fox News look like a fair and balanced media source - and they literally have shows with talking heads ranting about things.

Re:Motherboard and Ars

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for mentioning that, 4chan Breitbart faggot Trump traitor!

Re: Motherboard and Ars

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN and MSNBC are working hard to become more shrill and extreme, though.
Just this week, did you catch the fake news about cutting down a 200 year old tree at the White House?
Bring in specialists and historians to talk about how terrible it is, but not one arborist to describe how the tree is mostly rotten and about to fall over onto the White House... Great job MSNBC.

Re: Motherboard and Ars

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally can't find anything from MSNBC about the tree, but CNN goes on at length about why the tree is being removed.

Your comment is fucking fake news, you Trumptard bitch.

Re: Motherboard and Ars

[c6gunner]

How in the world did you manage to confuse the BBC with CNN?

Re: Motherboard and Ars

[Zontar The Mindless]

Why are you asking that question? Something was miscategorised as "fake news"; I pointed out that the news in question was not fake.

Re: Motherboard and Ars

[c6gunner]

Because he said that CNNs version of events was fake. It is not a valid response for you to then link to the BBC article.

It's as if he said "Bill lied to me about the price of tea in China" and you responded with "here's Bob telling you how much tea costs in China". It's a non-sequitur.

But there will be growth...

[XSportSeeker]

I don't think anyone should be questioning whether the monopolies will grow... they obviously will, with as much certainty that they won't be implementing obvious net neutrality ending measures right away.
That's not the issue at hand, the issue is the cost of all that.
Here's the thing: now thatbthis administration has completely bent over backwards to the likes of Comcast, signaling just how much they are willing to fuck consumers over in favor of their lobbying, any shitty corporation would be able to prosper.
If the EPA dropped down any and every regulation in favor of industries polluting rivers and such, of course there would be way less costs cut from proper procedures to guarantee they wouldn't kill entire swaths of lands and people.
So, if Comcast doesn't profit from the end of Net Neutrality, that's just incompetence.
No one is questioning their ability to become even more profitable at the face of what's happened. The problem is them, and the FCC, fucking everyone over for that.
FCC sold it's purpose and reason for being funded by taxpayer money to these monopolies. It's a fucking disgrace.

Re:But there will be growth...

[ScentCone]

now thatbthis administration has completely bent over backwards to the likes of Comcast

You're, of course, getting it exactly backwards. Companies like Comcast (which you're oddly confusing with being a "monopoly" ... despite the fact that are only one provider of such services out of multiple) - especially the big ones like them, Verizon, etc - LIKED Obama's rule. Because it made things harder on smaller, competing providers. Stop pretending you actually believe the crap you're spewing, and stop being a phony troll who's actually shilling for companies like Comcast. They wanted the more complex regulator environment in place, not stripped away. And you know that, and are simply lying with your childish-sounding theatrics.

So, if Comcast doesn't profit from the end of Net Neutrality, that's just incompetence.

Really, you're not fooling anyone with this BS. Comcast will LOSE market influence when things return to the way they were two years ago. Which you know, and are pretending (through things like your phony game of acting like you don't know how to use an apostrophe - that's a nice touch!) that you're too dumb to understand. Because you're just a righteous grass-roots resister! Power to the people! Except your troll is too juvenile to wash in a place like this. You need some fresh talking points from your employer - you're not coming across like a sincere enough useful idiot type.

Re:But there will be growth...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit using sock puppets to mod yourself up.
(The proof: no same mod would have upvoted your post here)

Re:But there will be growth...

[Daemonik]

You're, of course, getting it exactly backwards. Companies like Comcast (which you're oddly confusing with being a "monopoly" ... despite the fact that are only one provider of such services out of multiple) - especially the big ones like them, Verizon, etc - LIKED Obama's rule. Because it made things harder on smaller, competing providers. Stop pretending you actually believe the crap you're spewing, and stop being a phony troll who's actually shilling for companies like Comcast. They wanted the more complex regulator environment in place, not stripped away. And you know that, and are simply lying with your childish-sounding theatrics.

No, you have it backwards. When Comcast is the only cable provider and high speed internet provider in your county/state, they are a monopoly. It doesn't matter that people in the next county/state have Cox. Multiple providers in the country isn't competition if they don't actually compete for each other's customers. Also they don't want a complex regulatory environment. A regulatory environment gets reviewed by experts in the field and can be changed fairly rapidly in response to abuses. They want laws with plenty of loopholes written by themselves and handed to Congress as a fait accompli instead because getting one of those changed after the fact takes monumental effort.

Re:But there will be growth...

[eddeye]

Companies like Comcast (which you're oddly confusing with being a "monopoly" ... despite the fact that are only one provider of such services out of multiple) - especially the big ones like them, Verizon, etc - LIKED Obama's rule.

Begone troll! Your foul astroturf is no use here!

Re:But there will be growth...

[Anonymous Coward]

To call you a whore is an insult to whores.

Re:But there will be growth...

[gtall]

It isn't just the monopolies, it is the biggest fish eating the smaller fish. Amazon getting into just about any business with a decent cash flow is an example. The result is that there are now a dearth of small companies being built from the ground up. They get nipped in the bud before being allowed to blossom.

Re:But there will be growth...

[ScentCone]

When Comcast is the only cable provider and high speed internet provider in your county/state, they are a monopoly.

No, they are not a monopoly. They have competitors more than willing to step in. You're confusing the behavior of your local politicians as they prevent existing competitors from bidding for your business with there being a monopoly.

Re:But there will be growth...

[ScentCone]

Quit pretending that's something I've done so you can anonymously bitch about something without actually addressing the substance of the matter. A sure sign that you know you don't have anything constructive or even relevant to say.

Re:But there will be growth...

[ScentCone]

Begone troll! Your foul astroturf is no use here!

You can always tell when you're on to something accurate when the people who complain want to attack the messenger but can't muster the energy to trot out a single word addressing the substance of the matter. Like this. Pointing out that companies like Comcast LOVE high compliance costs and complex regulations because they have the corporate infrastructure to deal with it while smaller companies don't ... isn't trolling. Or astroturf. Astroturfing is a bunch of uninformed scaremongers parroting talking points that companies like Comcast LOVE. Like all the people who seem to think the internet was some unusable horror show of traffic shaping back in the bad old days of 2015. Hilarious.

Re: But there will be growth...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bro we've disproven what you said at length on every NN forum on slashdot. You've hand facts thrown your away, you ignore them. You've had sources thrown your way, you ignore them. You are constantly marked at -1 or Troll.

So no, the ownus of proof is on YOU. We've debunked your claims over and over and over. I will not waste any more time trying to get it through to you. If you haven't understood it by now then you will never understand it.

Keep thinking corporations are your friend and are doing what's best for you.

Re: But there will be growth...

[Anonymous Coward]

LOLOLOLOL

Man, you are so delusional.

Re: But there will be growth...

[ScentCone]

What? It's the people shilling for NN that are doing the handful of big corporations a favor. And you're still doing it, right now. Just like Comcast and Verizon like it. You're the one applauding an Obama-era rule that favored them and punished the little guys trying to compete. Quit lying about it, and be honest for a change.

Read it again

[Anonymous Coward]

"...expects to spend well in excess of $50 billion over the next five years..."

Explanation can't be real because ...

[ScentCone]

"Continuing to spend at that rate, even if...

So quoted snarky 'analysis' provides us with extrapolation and no evidence of whether the company's expenditure were going to match some past pattern, and provides no insight into exactly what the money would have (if indeed it would have been) spent on.

Using this poster's approved logic, we can also say that since Obama's NN rule wasn't in place back in the horrid, unusable internet days of 2015 when everyone's postings here on /. were silenced by evil ISPs whenever the conversation turned to bashing ISPs ... oh, right, that didn't happen. But since we can use patterns and trends and extrapolation to assert things as if we actually knew what the executives at Comcast were planning to do, we can safely say that since Obama's late-in-the-game flirtation with non-legislative control over private networks has come and gone without it really making a bit of difference, then it didn't matter if it was in place anyway. Just like the tax cut doesn't matter (well, other than the bonuses they're giving out to employees ... those don't matter anyway, so the employees should probably give those back since the 5-year trend was to not have those, right?).

Re:Explanation can't be real because ...

[The Evil Atheist]

In previous Slashdot postings on the subject, many people have given real world examples of the difference Obama's NN rules made.

But sure, keep repeating it in hopes people don't notice that you have already been utterly disproven before you even wrote anything this time around.

Re:Explanation can't be real because ...

[DaHat]

They also lacked specifics as to how Obama's NN rules made things worse.

Case in point... Comcast's bandwidth cap. 1 terabyte. You go over and you pay quite a bit for overages. Or for $50/month (at least in my area) more, you can have the cap removed. Already paying for the faster 'blast' speed tier? That just means you will hit the cap faster than those who don't.

Worse, this cap actually creates an environment beneficial to them and hostile to non Comcast streaming services... despite the rules.

Remember, the rules only covered internet traffic, on which Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, YouTube all traverse. The dirty little secret of the latest generation of Comcast boxes, is that they are pretty simple boxes with a cable modem inside which streams all but live shows. Even the latest generation of DVRs don't have a hard drive inside, they just stream from a private cloud. While your binge watching of something on Netflix traverses the public internet and counts against your bandwidth cap... you binge watching something via the X1 platform and your Comcast provided set top box doesn't. Sure, both use DOCSIS to communicate to the head office... one exits to the public internet, the other remains on a private network.

This means that as data usage increases due to higher degrees of consumption, cord cutting, or 4k video from streaming services, your use of Comcast's services is essentially 'free', while you only have a limited capacity for the external providers.

Welcome to the world which NN created.

Re:Explanation can't be real because ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Terabytes are not a measure of bandwidth, that's a fucking data cap, not a fast lane you stupid asshole.

You MUST be an Ajit Pai dick sucker, because no one else understands less about what the fuck they're talking about. Unless you're Trump himself.

Re:Explanation can't be real because ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always good to see reasoned and well thought out argument on the other side of a debate. Makes you feel like they really have a point, as opposed to those people who can't think of anything intelligent to say on a subject and just post personal attacks.

Can we get a Hitler reference next in order to properly Godwin the thread?

Re:Explanation can't be real because ...

[DaHat]

We could call him a 'grammar Nazi', to satisfy your ask... however I imagine he is more of a 'grammar Marxist' ;)

Re:Explanation can't be real because ...

[Anonymous Coward]

well... unless you have a time machine, the 1TB is actually 1TB per month, which is a measure of maximum bandwidth ... you moron (added because you seem to enjoy it)

if you don't use high bandwidth services (like netflix or video streaming) you won't be able to get to 1TB/mo

so, in our universe, instead of moron-land where you live, 1TB/month is a limit on effective bandwidth, you stupid asshole

Re:Explanation can't be real because ...

[Obfuscant]

one exits to the public internet, the other remains on a private network.

One is an internet service, one is not. Sorry, but I have Comcast, and their video services are broadcast on the same old channels that the analog TV signals were carried on. I've got ATSC tuners on that cable and they can still pull off the few unencrypted channels there, while showing me the existence all of the encrypted ones. I can't watch them, but I can get the channel and stream numbers and names for them all. My Homerun devices can even tell me the frequencies for the channels.

But in any case, what you've just said means that Comcast does not sum up your bandwidth on their private network that you pay for in one lump on your cable TV bill, but does sum up the bandwidth that goes across the public internet and through their border gateways where it costs them money to expand. I'm not surprised at that, and find little reason to be excited either way. They can't charge or cap your TV service -- they can tell what you are watching through the STB backchannel (but not for a DTA that has none) and the data is there 24/7 whether you watch it or not.

your use of Comcast's services is essentially 'free',

Excuse me? Shall I show you my cable bill and the list of channels I am paying to get, all with a monthly charge? You don't get nothin' from Comcast for free, essentially or not. You pay quite a bit for the availability of certain channels 24/7, and your use of them does not change the signals on the wire in any way.

while you only have a limited capacity for the external providers.

Which exists for all "external providers" irrespective of source. That's net neutral. Yes, you can compare two different delivery systems for two different sources of data, but that's apples and oranges. The "private network" of cable TV is not slowing down the public network of Netflix; there is no prioritization of one over the other. There is no relation between the two.

Re:Explanation can't be real because ...

[DaHat]

One is an internet service, one is not.

Woosh... you utterly missed the point... but lets play along for a minute and ignore the fact I said "Remember, the rules only covered internet traffic".

Sorry, but I have Comcast, and their video services are broadcast on the same old channels that the analog TV signals were carried on.

I'm aware... in fact, I've got 'building DTV systems' on my resume from 2003-2007 so I am very aware of how their systems work, so much so that when a Comcast tech comes to my house (every 2 months for the last couple of years) I can provided more detailed signal monitoring logs than they have.

I've got ATSC tuners on that cable and they can still pull off the few unencrypted channels there, while showing me the existence all of the encrypted ones. I can't watch them, but I can get the channel and stream numbers and names for them all. My Homerun devices can even tell me the frequencies for the channels.

And? I've a couple of HDHomeRun's as well.. one in the next room with a CableCARD, the other out of state plugged into an antenna and a Raspberry Pi... do you have a point yet?

But in any case, what you've just said means that Comcast does not sum up your bandwidth on their private network that you pay for in one lump on your cable TV bill, but does sum up the bandwidth that goes across the public internet and through their border gateways where it costs them money to expand.

Serious question... which do you think costs more to maintain/expand: all of the wiring to/from houses & the head end and their private network... or from their private network to the different backbones? The answer may disturb you. Doubly so when you consider how much/little of their private network is physically private vs hosted on a public cloud service which is locked down via private routes.

I'm not surprised at that, and find little reason to be excited either way. They can't charge or cap your TV service -- they can tell what you are watching through the STB backchannel (but not for a DTA that has none) and the data is there 24/7 whether you watch it or not.

Which is where the 'woosh' comes in of you completely missing the point. Yes, when I sit down on my X1 set top box or a other QAM capable receiver (ideally with a CableCARD)... there are a multitude of channels to be had... which are broadcast to all on the network, regardless of the potential receivers ability to decode the channel, or even if they are tuned to the channel or not. If my neighbor happens to tune to the local ABC eight and a half minutes into the program I am watching... there is no additional load on the system. If 10,000 people suddenly switch channels... ditto.

That isn't the problem.

Recall I said "you binge watching something via the X1 platform and your Comcast provided set top box doesn't". Again, specifically calling out their X1 platform... but this actually goes back older. When you opt to watch some VOD program... the DOCSIS part of the box kicks in. Lets imagine you and your neighbor sit down to watch the same VOD program at the same time in different houses, there is a doubling of cost upon the network. Don't believe me? Imagine your neighbor has an overactive bladder... so they pause frequently to take care of business... do you think the box would cache everything that was also simultaneously (in some's mind) being sent to you? Nope, the latest gen of X1 boxes don't even have a hard drive inside, instead streaming even DVR recordings from the 'private' cloud via DOCSIS.

If Aereo still existed... the DVR side of things might be an issue, but lets just skip it for a moment.

Excuse me? Shall I show you my cable bill and the list of channels I a

Re:Explanation can't be real because ...

[Obfuscant]

Woosh... you utterly missed the point... but lets play along for a minute and ignore the fact I said "Remember, the rules only covered internet traffic".

Yes, because the rules don't cover cable TV. Cable TV is not "internet traffic". It is irrelevant that there may be a cap on Internet traffic but no cap on how much cable TV you watch. That's the point. It has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Let me say that again. While NN supporters were pushing against things like 'fast lanes', NN created, in the case of Comcast 3 distinct lanes on their network:

No. Cable TV is NOT A "LANE" ON THE NETWORK. It is a different service using a different protocol, it just happens to come on the same wire.

But that's ok, it's a 'private' network, you seem to be suggesting.

NO. I didn't say that. It isn't the internet. Cable TV is cable TV. It uses a different technology.

Isn't one of the aims of NN not only to prevent an ISP from deliberately slowing down XYZ's traffic because ZYX paid them..

Explain exactly how you think that watching cable TV slows down anyone's internet. Go ahead. I'll wait.

When you opt to watch some VOD program... the DOCSIS part of the box kicks in. Lets imagine you and your neighbor sit down to watch the same VOD program at the same time in different houses, there is a doubling of cost upon the network. Don't believe me?

No, I don't believe you. First of all, the "DOCSIS" doesn't "kick in". onDemand is carried ON THE TV SERVICE. I have seen this first hand, before Comcast started encrypting the onDemand service. It was fun, getting the clearQAM tuner to rescan the cable looking for undocumented channels and then tuning in to watch along. I've seen people actually rewind the video a dozen times to watch the racy bits. That's how I know it's not just an itinerant feed of something.

So no, when your neighbor plays the same thing you are watching onDemand, the "cost" to the network does not double. It has a miniscule fractional increase using an unused TV channel. That has NO effect on your internet. None at all.

Your streaming it via X1 does not count against your cap... while you streaming it from a service you also pay for does.

Of course watching onDemand does not count against your cap, because IT IS NOT USING THE INTERNET. Nothing you watch on cable TV counts against your internet cap BECAUSE IT ISN'T INTERNET.

Here, maybe a simpler system will make the point. You get DSL on your phone line, ok? Do you think that making a voice call on your voice telephone will count against your DSL internet cap? OF COURSE NOT. Do you get charged long distance for making "DSL" calls to a foreign country? OF COURSE NOT. Two different systems, but they use the same wire. I know, it sounds like magic, but it isn't. One is internet, one is not.

My favorite example of this

[rsilvergun]

is AT&T is going around telling everyone the bonuses they're giving out are due to their tax cut. Turns out the Union fought for a pay raise, lost, and took a one time bonus in lieu of a raise. The amount of gall on display there is stunning. It's a lie up there with Orwell's chocolate rations.

Re:My favorite example of this

[Anonymous Coward]

as you write this over a comcast cable internet ip address.

Re:My favorite example of this

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets better, they also announced they are laying off 1400...

Re:My favorite example of this

[omnichad]

And if they have a tax rate payday coming, it's much more profitable to write off a one-time bonus when the corporate rate is higher than to raise wages during a tax cut.

Re:My favorite example of this

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T was going to give 20,000 union members only a bonus.
When the tax cut passed, it was expanded to 200,000 employees - mostly those outside of unions.

There's a lot of posing by corporations, but your example is actually damaging your own argument when you present the facts, rather than your vague spin.

Re: My favorite example of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the union-negotiated bonus was for 20,000 line workers and not 200,000. But let's not allow facts to get in the way of an outbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Re:My favorite example of this

[Anonymous Coward]

The maneuver was also calculated to make sure that they weren't conspicuous by their absence when several other very large employers were doing exactly the same thing.

The maneuver was a pointless gesture that will not help the employees of AT&T to any real degree, let alone the customers, but is simply more corporate grand-standing.

But it's kinda Trump's own fault, with his history of claims that tend to be overblown, such as Carrier, Ford, the Carriers (even the Ford, apparently he had some issue with the new catapult technology), his own election, his business history...

People get used to looking to check the Emperor's Clothes.

Re:My favorite example of this

[Anonymous Coward]

When the tax cut passed, it was expanded to 200,000 employees - mostly those outside of unions.

More like 198,600. The other 1,400 get a pink slip instead. Between salary, benefits, and overhead, that should easily make up the difference.

Re: My favorite example of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you included the jobs created from the additional capital expenditure? (Roughly 7K jobs.)

Re: My favorite example of this

[Anonymous Coward]

What? He never stated any numbers. But let's not FACTS get in the way.

Me thinks you don't know what a fact is.

Comcast vs Motherboard

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a tough one.

One the one hand you have the biggest assholes on the planet. And on the other you have Comcast.

Whose side should I be on?

"There's no evidence.... "

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's no evidence.... "
This is the weakest form of logic.
How can you say "there is no..." ? Where is "there"? Your own feeble mind and vision? It would imply you know "everything", which is impossible.
Until evidence is found, by somebody, somewhere, sometime, it is open for speculation.
"There is no evidence" is a sentence that should be banned.
There is no evidence that D. Trump has brain or that he masturbates 5 times a day. Has anyone seen it? Maybe the MRI and jizz is from his dog?

Re:"There's no evidence.... "

[king neckbeard]

Okay, let me put it more bluntly. If you think Comcast is going to do anything that 1) won't make them money or 2) they are required by law to do, then you are gullible beyond gullible. the appropriate headline would be "Comcast's claims about investment due to NN repeal and Tax Cuts is clearly absolutely bullshit to anybody who knows anything about anything." But that kind of headline doesn't generally sit well with advertisers.

Q3 2017??

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it interesting that the only actual date they gave was Q3 2017 spending? Wasn't net neutrality doomed by then? Hmm.. Biased article?

Re: Q3 2017??

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the lefties are stretching their assholes trying to find a way to defeat Trump but all that comes out is this shit. The left is doomed and they are attending their funeral. Itâ(TM)s gonna be a glorious century without the commie fags trying to destroy civilization.

You don't honestly believe that, do you?

[rsilvergun]

you simply can't be that naive. Nobody is. The bonuses were already decided on long before the tax bill (which was surprisingly uncertain, but in the end passed because the Republican's donors made it clear that if it didn't they weren't getting any more money). They'll use the $1.5 trillion in new debt as an excuse for entitlement 'reform', meaning they'll pocket our social security and medicare money. We got sold out. All of us. Unless you've got a silver spoon in your mouth you're in for a rude, rude awakening when you're 65 and dying of a completely preventable disease.

Re:You don't honestly believe that, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the government can print more money, right?

Money is fictitious and the US government can never run out of it.

Lucky to be in the US. European union countries don't have that luxury.

Re: You don't honestly believe that, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice non reply to a very cogent post.

Re:You don't honestly believe that, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

It also helps to cut out the toxins, go biodynamic and exercise more. Nobody else can take responsibility for your health, but you shouldn't need to go bankrupt due to such hardship periods.

Re:You don't honestly believe that, do you?

[TheGratefulNet]

I expect that, if its how you say and we all wake up to a rude awakening one day, hell, I can see how it plays out: we have nothing left so we have nothing left to lose. we'll go out in a blaze of glory, so to speak. any 'rich guy' in the way gets plowed down.

it will be bloody and the result will be 'change' but not for the better.

still, it WILL happen. the R's seem to want this, for some sick fucking reason. they are daring us all to do this. and I suspect they'll get their wish if things continue along this broken path they setup for us all.

yeah, I can see a new crop of american local 'terrorists'. when we have nothing left and the rich guys robbed us all blind, we'll take to the streets and that will be the end of us all.

republicans: please rethink your plan. I don't think you really have thought about the end result of all of this 'fuck you, I got mine!' attitude.

Re:You don't honestly believe that, do you?

[ScentCone]

We got sold out.

We got sold out when those welfare programs were first designed with baked-in insolvency as their inevitable end. Changing the age at which you start getting other people's money isn't "selling out," it's being grown ups and doing something about the inherently flawed and unsustainable phony delusion that it's possible to give benefits to young-ish retired people through the labors of a dwindling ratio of working people. If you were even awake for the last 30 years you'd recognize that the "rude awakening" happened to rational people decades ago. If this is just now dawning on people, it's because they've been consuming lefty propaganda for their entire lives and don't want to be bothered with things like the staggeringly simple math of the situation. If you're really troubled by a trillion and a half of new debt, you must have been furious about the far huger amounts racked up by Obama.

Re:You don't honestly believe that, do you?

[Uberbah]

We got sold out when those welfare programs were first designed with baked-in insolvency as their inevitable end.

Try not to be TOO much of an unhinged Randian dipshit. The programs are self-funded through payroll taxes. Even in the event of another Great Depression, it's impossible for them to become insolvent because there will always be some money coming in to pay for some benefits going out.

Is this positive news?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Since when do we want a monopoly or cartel to expand? Good news for Comcast isn't good news for its customers.
2) Their point is valid, the investment rate was before the removal of net neutrality hence NN is not the cause.

"Why are they still considered news sources any better than Breitbart and 4chan?"
Ahh, so even from your perspective you know the issues with Breitbart's propaganda dressed up as news? FBI catches a spy and money launder for Putin, Breitbart and Fox lay down covering smoke *for*Russia*, pretend its all a plot of deep government and the 'Hillary Administration'... and even you lot can see there is issues with that. Is Hillary in power? Is the FBI arresting Russian spies with evidence a deep state plot against Trump? When Erik Prince's money backchannel to Russia is confirmed, will it be OK for Motherboard to support the USA and call for his imprisonment? Or will you expect them to side with Russia over America like Fox & Friends? Or Moore? Or Trump?

But I view your comment as positive, since you begin to understand the issue with Breitbart, that's at least a step forward.

With a narcissist as President...

[Anonymous Coward]

it is extremely important and cheaper than what would have sufficed with other Presidents for any mega corp that benefits from political support to state that everything they spend, even operational funds, wouldn't have been spent without His Magnificent's presence in office. This is just competent business. Companies not doing this need to have their board overhauled for negligence.

Monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do towns continue to provide these thugs with monopoly rights? Cities should stop providing these cable companies exclusive rights to be the sole provider of cable service. Why canâ(TM)t towns have more than one cable service provider?

Comcast is not that stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies have been investing in anticipation of tax cuts and repeal of regulations such as ObamaNet for over a year now. What is interesting is that Comcast admitted it.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Research has discovered that there is no evidence that Comcast is competent in any way whatsoever outside bilking their customers.

Smoke and mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting how these companies take advantage and spin the numbers to their advantage. Yet fail to acknowledge they hadnâ(TM)t really changed anything. Personally as a Comcast customer our system is archaic as confirmed by one of their own tech people who was out at my house last Summer. Said, the whole system needed replacing to add proper capacity for bandwidth improvements. Canâ(TM)t tell you how many trunk line patches I see. Itâ(TM)s become a dinosaurs in technology and you have to wonder if Comcast is spending anything close to what it needs to in offering future services?

Re:Smoke and mirrors

[sabbede]

What's wrong with your character encoding? Why do all your apostrophes look like â(TM)?

And if you're going to post so much, why the hell don't you sign in?

They Need To Go Hungry

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast's programming sort of sucks these days. Their prices are way to high and new technology threatens to kick them in the fanny. if they try to float these billions upon the paying customers you can bet a lot of cable cutting is about to take place. Comcast is not all that popular with its end users these days. charging more is foolish.

Breaking News!

[Anonymous Coward]

large corporation lies to populace. More at 11.

And this is a surprise, how? large corporations make their money by lying to us.

What's this fallacy called?

[sabbede]

They're making a very naive assumption about the continuation and linearity of a trend over the next 60 months based on the last 12. The reasoning is fallacious, and I'm pretty sure there is a name for it, I just don't know what that name is.

Re:What's this fallacy called?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reasoning is fallacious, and I'm pretty sure there is a name for it, I just don't know what that name is.

The fallacy list you keep seeing people post rather than respond to claims is a collection of argument styles that are not valid in hard logic. Most people haven't used hard logic since doing a few mathematical proofs in school. Some of them are valid points to discredit portions of an argument, but naming one doesn't actually solve anything.

Now, discalimer over, you're just thinking of bad statistical projections. Any time your extrapolated, interpolated, or otherwise non-data data set exceeds your actual data, the chance of it being a useful hybrid drops dramatically. In some fields, this doesn't end up mattering, but those fields have no hard predictive value, the best they can offer is a statistical test as to the feasibility of a prediction.

Another NN article? (Not moaning)

[houghi]

What amazes me is how long we are already fighting this. And once it is gone, we will never be able to get it back.

Here an article about it : https://www.dailykos.com/story...
Not so much the content is interesting, but the date. December 26th, 2010. twothousand-fucking-ten. And even if it won't happen now and the next two precidency terms are Dems, the one after that will be Rep again and they will go for it again. They only need to succeed once. We can never fail.

So I am actually a bit happy to see those articles. It means there is still a bit of hope.

Re:Another NN article? (Not moaning)

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people (read: non-FCC/Big 3 affiliated) who actively support repealing NN are deluded husks who honestly think that the consumer ISP market is currently competitive across the country. No doubt they also probably watch their Netflix in 4K and would be the first ones to call Comcast over bad service, only to find out that the only other ISP in town provides worse service/won't run the lines to their house.

But yeah, it's a real Wheel of Time situation here, all it takes is the Dark One winning once to derail everything.

Re:Another NN article? (Not moaning)

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to becoming a Native.

Yeah, it sucks when you're not the Oppressor anymore.

Time will tell

[stabiesoft]

I just read that Foxconn is getting another billion in incentives in WI to come there. And for the almost 5 billion in incentives, they are only guaranteeing they will hire 3000, but up to 13000. So if it is 3000, WI would have been better off opening the factory themselves and becoming state owned.

Re:Time will tell

[Anonymous Coward]

So doing the math, $5B / 3000 = $1.66M / job.
For these jobs it would be way cheaper to just give 3000 folks income for life instead of making them show up for work.
(Presumably, this is not about building an adult day care center.)

But hopefully, the story is about moving the supply chain back to the US.

Comcast is Playing a Larger Game Here

[Ferretman]

If they credit the tax cuts, whether they "really" are the reason or not, it doesn't really matter. it's an easy way to make themselves look good with or without the tax cuts.

The important thing is to expand that infrastructure....Odin knows they could use it.

Ferret

Social Security wasn't insolvent at the start

[rsilvergun]

the tax on wasn't capped nearly as low as it is now. That's one of the common tricks of the Republican party: Let inflation do the work for you. We haven't raised the limit on Social Security taxes in over 80 years. No shit it's having problems. The Republicans can't kill it directly because old people vote. So they're doing it in sneaky ways. Loading down the US with Debt from pointless wars and the profiteering that goes with them while concern trolling to use the debt as leverage to take all the money.

I will say it again: You are being had. You're their patsy. Wake up. Grow up. Before it's too late.

One more thing I should add

[rsilvergun]

if you put people who are convinced gov't is going to fail in charge of gov't what do you think is going to happen? This is why the right wing can't govern. Either they're just just crooks, or they approach government like it's a disease to be excised from the body public. Bottom line: If you've already decided you're going to fail well, what do you know, you're gonna fail.

comcast lies to us

[roc97007]

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

What Investment?

[Elixon]

Is it investment in throttling technology and deep packet inspection servers? Yeah, that is expensive stuff. And I can imagine all those new jobs for calling customers to push them new paid features like $5 for your VPN running fast... So at the end those $5B will need to be extracted from customers anyway...

I wish customers will get some real improvements for their $5B.

So Ars is now a financial journal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet you trust a report from an IT writer for a failing media company discussing CapEx and investment forecasts.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, corporate taxes are designed to get money from corporations.

Oh, and those evil shareholders? You do realize that they're retirement funds. Yes, the people who are hurt the worst by the progressive attacks on "shareholders" are pensioners and those paying into pension funds.

Sophistry

[Uberbah]

But the bottom line is that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

That's a lie, as U.S. corporations pay very little compared to the rest of the world after deductions. But you knew that already.

If you want to compete we need to lower that.

Except: no tax cut on profits has ever created a single job or spurred investment. Ever. If a company thinks it will make more money by hiring more people or buying more equipment - it will hire more people or buy more equipment. Tax rates are completely irrelevant to that calculus.