Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–217 of 217 posts

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#211

Post by fsckboy »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #208
fsckboy wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

food retail margins are 2% every time they turn over their inventory , which if they manage it properly can be much less than a month. so that 2% is annualized via a large multiplier the margins for telecoms are considered on an annual basis.

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that gross revenues for food retail are higher, and thus 2% of is bigger than 12% of ?

if you buy broccoli and sell it a few days later at a 2% profit (net of costs), you just made 2%. if that took you a week, and you do it again the next week, and the week after that, you took your investment and grew it 52 weeks @ 2% a week, you'd be at 280% or more than 180% profit (1.02 ^ 52, presuming you also buy and sell 2% more of the broccoli itself every week. if you just buy the same amount of broccoli every week that's just 52 * .02 plus a little for interest, and you take the profits and pay off debts or take it as income, etc.)

if you lay fiber and connect it to the internet and hire cable guys to visit people's houses and customer service people to answer the phone, and your total revenue for a year minus your costs for a year comes out to a profit margin of 50%, you have 50% margins.

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#212

Post by frumper »

fsckboy wrote: post #211
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that gross revenues for food retail are higher, and thus 2% of is bigger than 12% of ?

if you buy broccoli and sell it a few days later at a 2% profit (net of costs), you just made 2%. if that took you a week, and you do it again the next week, and the week after that, you took your investment and grew it 52 weeks @ 2% a week, you'd be at 280% or more than 180% profit (1.02 ^ 52, presuming you also buy and sell 2% more of the broccoli itself every week. if you just buy the same amount of broccoli every…

If you buy broccoli for $1.00 and sell it in a week for $1.02 you’ve made 2%. If you buy another broccoli for $1.00 and sell it again for $1.02 then you’re still at a 2% profit for the year. You’ve spent $2 on inventory with revenue of $2.04, for a total profit margin of 2%. This is obviously simplified.

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#213

Post by jrflowers »

fsckboy wrote: post #211
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that gross revenues for food retail are higher, and thus 2% of is bigger than 12% of ?

if you buy broccoli and sell it a few days later at a 2% profit (net of costs), you just made 2%. if that took you a week, and you do it again the next week, and the week after that, you took your investment and grew it 52 weeks @ 2% a week, you'd be at 280% or more than 180% profit (1.02 ^ 52, presuming you also buy and sell 2% more of the broccoli itself every week. if you just buy the same amount of broccoli every…

This math makes sense because grocery stores only buy broccoli once and then sell it over and over again for theoretically infinite profit. $1 spent on a broccoli over a year can be in the millions due to this phenomenon

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#214

Post by fsckboy »

frumper wrote: post #212
fsckboy wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you buy broccoli and sell it a few days later at a 2% profit (net of costs), you just made 2%. if that took you a week, and you do it again the next week, and the week after that, you took your investment and grew it 52 weeks @ 2% a week, you'd be at 280% or more than 180% profit (1.02 ^ 52, presuming you also buy and sell 2% more of the broccoli itself every week. if you just buy the same amount of broccoli every…

If you buy broccoli for $1.00 and sell it in a week for $1.02 you’ve made 2%. If you buy another broccoli for $1.00 and sell it again for $1.02 then you’re still at a 2% profit for the year. You’ve spent $2 on inventory with revenue of $2.04, for a total profit margin of 2%. This is obviously simplified.

the piece of corporate finance you are missing is that the money you use to buy the broccoli is scarce, you have to "pay" for it. you can't leave it out of the calculation. You pay for it to who you borrowed it from, or to your shareholders, or the opportunity cost of taking it out of whatever use somebody else was paying you for.

that dollar you use to buy the broccoli, it's like a machine you use to knit sweaters. If you put that dollar to use for a year and sell one broccoli, you made 2%. If you put that same-single-dollar to use for a year and sell 52 broccolis, you made more.

what I originally said was that you can't just look at the margin on a sale, you need to look at inventory turn, how many times you collect the margin.

what makes the margin low is competition. a grocer is willing to accept a 2% margin on a sale because the cycle can be repeated many times in a year. In a sense, the interest rate (which is quoted at annual rates) on the borrowed dollar is fixed at that annual rate, but if you get to cycle through your operating capital quickly, you get to look at it as the amount of interest you need to pay each week.

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#215

Post by mxyztplk »

crote wrote: post #180
josh2600 wrote: post #30

I'm fine with AT&T no longer supporting landlines if they start supporting fiber to every household. US broadband is a joke compared to many other parts of the world.

The trick is to mandate "telephone service", not "analog landline". That'd allow them to transition to telephone-over-fiber, making new connections worth the effort.

AT&T is the Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) in various areas of California. They have applied to the CPUC to have "targeted relief" from that telephone service obligation.

Currently, AT&T could provide telephone service via fiber, rather than copper, wherever they may choose to do so. So, currently, they can transition to fiber-to-the-premises wherever they want. Their COLR obligation does not require copper wires as the technology.

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#216

Post by pizzafeelsright »

pizzafeelsright wrote: post #13

Related, I am not sure how to teach a toddler to call 911. My cell is locked and I'm not giving them the pin or face. Without a land line I am considering an exterior alarm wired to an inside panic button. In the evert I collapse from choking on a banana slug what does my toddler do? So far the I instructions are to ring the trusted neighbors.

I am surprised at the lack of reading comprehension in these replies.

I am certain 911/emergency services work on a locked phone. My point is teaching a toddler

From my locked phone it is ~8 steps. Power on, swipe phone, press emergency button, type in 911, send.

Power button x >5 seems to trigger it as well. This may be the better option.

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#217

Post by Tonypear729 »

A good friend of mine recommended Henry Clark Hacker to me when I had issues with my partner, he started acting suspicious and was on his phone at odd hours & always acting strange. I contacted Henry hacker and he remotely hacked into his device granting me total access to his device without him knowing. I was shocked and overwhelmed that I could read his texts, see pictures, emails and all that. This hacker is hands down the best I’ve hired. Contact him on email : Henryclarkethicalhacker @ g mail com, I recommend him to everyone reading this post.
Post reply on HN