No they don’t. The first one isn’t about profitability at all, and cites nothing about it and only links to a study about broadband speeds (and it’s good we’ve caught up a bit regarding speed, but it doesn’t change anything at all in the criticisms laid down in this forum). The second link is hugely suspect and comes across as mostly propaganda without citing anything at all. In fact it states - without citation - that companies have invested $200 billion since 1996 in infrastructure, suspiciously the exact same figure that the telecoms got in tax breaks and subsidies due to the 1996 law and proceed not to in fact built the infrastructure they were supposed to. I’d almost cancel that number right out due to what we know (or what has been reported) about the 1996 government assistance. So all that’s left is the $10 billion per year in upkeep. Which is also not cited.
Even Googling the big study that the NTY op ed writer was part of, there’s little to convince about price and profitability that I haven’t’ already addressed. It ignores entirely the enormous tax payer paid portion of the infrastructure already in place from the 1996 agreement, the state-by-state incentives as well, and the fact that the lack of competition and the need for telecos to build their own networks was a rule specifically lobbied for by the telecos themselves, and consistently lobbied to remain this way. It even tries to use as an example all the miles of fiber the companies laid in 2011 alone - which would time perfectly with yet another tax payer subsidized windfall, the $4 billion from the stimulus package dedicated to broadband. But no mention of this subsidy is made. So yeah, I take issue.
My point here is that - even though I DO take issue with your given sources - it’s irrelevant to the primary point/outrage. Whether they are HIGHLY profitable or just profitable, they are nevertheless profitable due to suspect practices in an industry consciously made to me monopolized and run precisely as it is. How horribly profitable they are isn’t the point, the point is WHY they are profitable, through what means, and whether we agree with them.
Not so. Natural Price is determined by demand, but the natural price of everything is determined by demand, including all the costs involved to make something or mine something or deliver something. If not enough can afford it, the price is driven down. Slavery and government subsidies merely change the profit margin for selling things at natural cost or near natural cost. Subsidies are generally used because governments don’t want to confront the harsh reality that would follow as its citizens couldn’t afford the price of a global commodity, a commodity that usually the government is to blame for having gotten it citizenry dependent upon. The fact that few can afford the price being demanded by the seller, means the asking price is artificially HIGH. It has to be high across the board because if subsidies are necessary, the subsidies are merely allowing all the corporate entities involved to keep their profit margins even when the price is lowered to match the actual natural price that consumers can afford. Slaves, similarly, allow their owners to gain from their businesses more than they could otherwise. If iPhones were built in America, the prices would not HAVE to go up. But they would to let Apple keep the same profit margins as Chinese labor allows them.
