The earnings season kicked off last week with better-than-expected results from Alcoa (AA) and Yum! Brands (YUM), while Marriott (MAR) and Pepsico (PEP) met consensus EPS estimates. This week, bellwether companies Intel (INTC), General Electric (GE), Google (GOOG) and JPMorgan Chase (JPM) are scheduled to report their third-quarter results, and analysts polled by Thomson Reuters are looking for earnings growth from all of them.

Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel announced the acquisition of McAfee and joint ventures with General Electric and Nokia (NOK) during its third quarter. Analysts forecast earnings for that period to come to 50 cents per share, which is up 34.0% from the same period of last year. The number one semiconductor maker's revenue for the three months ended in September is expected to total $11.0 billion, or 17.1% more than a year earlier. Looking ahead to the full year, the forecast thus far is for earnings of $1.94 per share (+44.8%) and $43.3 billion in revenue (+23.4%). The per-share earnings topped analysts' expectations in the past four quarters, by as much as a dime per share.

Continue reading Week in Preview: Earnings Expectations for Intel, GE, Google and JPMorgan

Week in Preview: Earnings Expectations for Intel, GE, Google and JPMorgan originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Google (GOOG) has been all over the news recently -- if it was the small acquisitions or the proposed net neutrality deal with Verizon (VZ). But perhaps more seriously are the different articles in the media about how the Web is changing and how that's going to affect the search engine giant.

The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet is the provocative title of a Wired article published Tuesday. Chris Anderson explains how we changed our habits from using the "wide-open Web to semiclosed platforms that use the Internet for transport but not the browser for display." Most importantly, he adds, "it's a world Google can't crawl."

Continue reading Google Faces Threats as Web Is Changing

Google Faces Threats as Web Is Changing originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading Time Warner Cable testing tiered and metered internet access

Time Warner Cable testing tiered and metered internet access originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:28:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The FCC has an understanding with the broadband providers in the telecom and cable industries. All consumers and websites will have the same access to bandwidth. A site that takes up very little in terms of data transferred from an internet company is treated no better than YouTube, which uses a lot of bandwidth capacity.

The FCC is charging that Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) has broken the net neutrality pact. According to The Wall Street Journal, "Comcast stands accused by software companies, public-interest groups and academics of degrading customers' ability to use file-sharing software, which enables users to send high-quality video files over the Internet."

While broadband subscribers and websites would all like to be treated as equals, they do not all use equal internet capacity. Video sites not only use more bandwidth, they can take capacity from other customers on the network. Cable and telecom companies do not have infinite access to push and pull bits though their systems. To improve that access they would have to spend billions of dollars to upgrade their cooper and fiber lines.

The time may come, and it may be soon, that the democracy of the internet goes away. Consumers and web properties who fill the "pipes" with content may well have to pay a higher toll.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24wallst.com.

FCC to go after Comcast (CMCSA) on net neutrality originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:16:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The FCC says that cable company Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) is slowing service to some of its customers, especially those who use a great deal of bandwidth on video downloads and peer-to-peer software applications. Comcast says it is simply managing its network so that it does not get overloaded and hurt service to all customers.

The debate came to a head yesterday. According to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), "Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin warned cable giant Comcast that the government is `ready, willing and able' to stop companies from improperly hobbling Internet traffic."

The FCC position is a little out of touch with reality. Telecom companies and cable firms do not have an unlimited amount of bandwidth to offer each and every home. At some point, the pipes do become overloaded. The cynical view is that these large companies want to charge heavy users more money for taking up more bandwidth. What is probably more accurate is that, unless there is some governor of internet use, the system will slow for everyone.

A cup can only hold so much water.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

FCC warns Comcast (CMCSA) on internet speeds originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Google after the bell for 8-23-06: Net netrality gets new angle from Google exec originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:56:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Google threatens antitrust lawsuits if Net Netrality causes power abuse originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:43:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading Senator who voted against net neutrality confused by concept

Senator who voted against net neutrality confused by concept originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:34:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The "Net Neutrality" debate is confusing, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Andy Kessler from The Weekly Standard calls the issue "bizarre" and "hard to understand" and opines: "both sides are off their rocker." He argues that the answer is not regulation. The telcos and cable companies, he says, are loathe to upgrade their networks -- it's expensive, and, why would they without the government stepping in? They want neutrality regulations to be quelled because "without the ability to extract money from the webbies for the use of their not-so-fast Alexander Graham Bell-era wires (forget that you and I already overpay for this), AT&T or Verizon might not have any business model going forward."

Kessler's "modest proposal" is creative and a little diabolical (ergo: I love it). "Maybe the incumbent network providers--the Verizons, Comcasts, AT&Ts--can be made to compete; threatening to seize their stagnating networks via eminent domain is just one creative idea to get them to do this. A truly competitive, non-neutral network could work, but only if we know its real economic value. If telcos or cable charge too much, someone should be in a position to steal the customer. Maybe then we'd see useful services and a better Internet. Sounds like capitalism."

What does the blogerati think about the idea of seizing broadband in the name of eminent domain?

Continue reading Net Neutrality: 'both sides are off their rocker'

Net Neutrality: 'both sides are off their rocker' originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:12:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Latest Net Neutrality suggestion favors Google and web companies originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:23:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Google after the bell for 6-14-06: Network neutrality and GBuy in the blender originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:28:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

If any company should be more interested in the fierce net neutrality debate that continues to heat up on Capitol Hill than Google, will it please stand up? I didn't think so -- in fact, Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently published an open letter to Google users on the subject.

After reading what Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf  had to say on the subject as well, Google probably has the most to lose should the money-grubbing big telecom firms win in their wishes to control Internet access with tiered services and such. Cerf is widely considered as the "father of the Internet" and is now in the employ of Google. Read Cerf's letter to the U.S. Senate here (PDF).

Should big telecom just give customers big and tall a "data pipe" in which to do anything and everything they need? Well, this is what's been great about Internet access until now -- it's open to everyone and anyone with just a slow or fast data connection. What you do over that connection is nobody's business but your own.

Continue reading Will you pay to use Google Search?

Will you pay to use Google Search? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Meg Whitman swung the massive club of her one million-plus eBay membership today, calling on each of them individually to get involved in the net neutrality debate in a personally-addressed email. She argued against the doctrine of "pay to play" to use the "fast lane" of the internet and said, "The bottom tier -- the slow lane -- would be what is left for everyone else. If the fast lane is the information 'super-highway,' the slow lane will operate more like a dirt road." Her missive asked each member to follow a link to send an email to their congressperson.

The debate, which pitches the internet backbone providers (like Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner's cable unit) against the biggest bandwidth users (like eBay, Google, Amazon.com, Microsoft and Yahoo!) is growing more bitter by the minute. Whitman's atypical move of sending email to her many members is seen as an unconventional approach in a battle that, to date, has failed to explain itself well to voters; although investors, certainly, can understand that the potential for huge profits hang in the balance.

eBay diving into net neutrality: the million-member email originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:43:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The Net Neutrality debate is taking on a fever pitch as Congress considers legislation that would, in essence, allow AT&T, Comcast and other phone and cable operators to charge for "premium" service, including data-heavy VoIP and video. Google, Amazon and other providers of data want to keep the content delivery the same for all -- and prevent operators from charging for preferred placement.

At its heart, the legislation would allow content machines to bid for priority delivery. In Craig Newmark's words, "[should] Yahoo ... be allowed to outbid Google to slow down Google on people's computers?" The group he supports, "Save the Internet," says no. Mike McCurry, former White House spokesman and co-chair of the very confusingly-named "Hands Off the Internet" group, say yes. He echoes Chicken Little as he tells Newmark in a Wall Street Journal debate, "the current Internet is creaky and will suffer congestion if we don't invest in improvements. The network operators prepared to make those investments need to get a return and one way is to charge a premium for managing huge bandwidth content differently."

It's a very confusing argument, as they seem to be both arguing for less government involvement and at one point Newmark commends McCurry for "cleverly using Colbertian 'truthiness.' "

Continue reading Mike McCurry vs. Craig Newmark: is the internet doomed?

Mike McCurry vs. Craig Newmark: is the internet doomed? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 24 May 2006 20:24:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Imagine an Internet environment in which you were taxed each time you downloaded an itune or searched for the directions and customer reviews of that trendy bistro you were headed to this weekend. Or perhaps, somewhat less ominously, imagine that Internet content providers from the behemoths such as Google, Yahoo!, Apple and Amazon to the little guys such as your favorite foodie blog paid the tax which pressured margins for these companies.

Yesterday, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce rejected an amendment proposed by Representative Ed Markey which would inhibit discrimination of Internet traffic. The vote shuns FCC involvement and serves as a defeat for these Internet companies and a victory for major cable and telecom companies such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon which own the "pipes" that contain the flow of Internet traffic

This net neutrality debate has been heating up big time in recent months as these "pipes" companies pursue an active lobbying effort to keep government regulation away from controlling how they charge those who utilize their infrastructure.

Both sides have a point. On the one hand, it seems like it would be grossly unfair for your Internet provider to allow slow connections to specific sites that you love to visit and have grown to love. On the other hand, the telcos and cable guys do own the pipes.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about it and simply don't want to see it become prohibitive for the little guys to fire up and operate cool and innovative new websites.

Nevertheless, how net neutrality unfolds in Washington over the next two years or so will have a huge effect on the landscape of the web we all surf daily though. At this point it is impossible to predict the resulting terrain. The details will require close scrutiny for those who have a strong interest in the Internet experience or the companies involved as votes such as yesterday's shift the dynamics of who might wind up paying for Internet traffic. 

Net neutrality debate heats up in DC: Score one for the pipes originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.