Considering both have over 150000 employees and with revenue totaling over $100B, they'd only be able to sustain another month without any revenue ... 

And they are not going without revenue.

And these margins can hardly be described as "killing" ... 

Comfortable, yes but not omnipotent that they'd be able to sustain losses for years ... 

According to this... Verizons profit margins hit upwards of 16.3%.
https://ycharts.com/companies/VZ/profit_margin

And AT&T had peaks of 21%.
https://ycharts.com/companies/T/profit_margin

Verizon itself brings in $125~ Billion USD in revenue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications

AT&T brings in $160~ Billion USD in revenue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T

They aren't doing it as tough as you think they are... They also tend to give billions to shareholders.

Instead of trying to scam consumers with Micro-transactions... They should try to value-add, which many providers did here Pre-NBN to try and get customers.
In short, they lowered prices, but got consumers to spend more and locked them into contracts.

They have diversified enough for that never to become an issue.
AT&T and Verizon combined also have over half a trillion dollars in assets that they can leverage.

Yet at the same time both exhibited losses plus I'm using yearly numbers with last year as a reference anyways while the peak numbers you presented can only be reached in a quarter ... 

And calling it a "scam" is a bit much when the said firm in question is providing you with the service as often advertised ... 

Spend more how when market penetration is already high ? The only obvious way to make consumers spend more is to tailor service packages and hope that they choose highest tier ... 

I doubt it, all they know how to do is provide either cable or internet service and that makes up the vast majority of their revenue so if the whole telecommunications industry goes down then they do as well ... 

They may have half a trillion dollars in assets but it remains hard to compete against top incumbents in established industries ... 

All of the biggest tech companies are trying to enter healthcare but you don't see any of them willingly entering pharmaceuticals despite their total capital ... 

Companies often exhibit losses by deferring expenditure/costs to other quarters... It's mostly done for the tax benefits and to make themselves look good at specific times when they intend to attract investors. - Microsoft has done this multiple times before, for example when they wrote down the Nokia acquisition and claimed a loss, they still raked in the billions in profits that and every other quarter though.

It's a scam... Just like lootboxes/microtransactions. - You are a consumer, why are you even defending this?
The internet has worked fine for decades... It's not broken, no need to fix it. - Are you supporting this because the Left/Obama is against it? Honest question.

Verizon, AT&T are monolithic companies, they are not doing it tough, they rake in the cash.

Blatantly false.
You should take a look at other telecommunications companies in other markets across the planet and see what they are doing.

LOL, are you really going to ask about partisanship when I see this as a technical discussion ? 

And more importantly when did I ever claim to have supported the end of net neutrality or much less defend it ? 

We're all consumers but most of us also produces goods and services but how would you feel if you were a content creator and you decided to instead pirate from other content creators because you didn't like their monetization strategy yet in return they do the same to you when they don't like your monetization strategy ? 

Ending net neutrality is not at all like lootboxes either once we consider that there are no contracts to be with the latter or legal guarantees ... 

There's almost no other country with a situation as comparable to the US's so unless you can show otherwise it's already doubtful that your idea of adding more value to a service will work ... (in fact it's probably worse for driving revenue unless more value is locked behind the premium options but ending net neutrality will already do this) 

It really grinds my gears how people will take examples of solutions from other nations such as healthcare and apply it to the US since it shows how much more naive they can get ... 

Incorrect. It is those who refuse to look at other examples that fundamentally work that are literally (by it's very definition...) naive.

If other countries are doing things better than the USA... Then they are certainly relevant points that can and should be brought up.

It was a simple question. I am not an American, so your political alignment has no direct bearing upon me.
You could be dating Trump or the Queen of England and I wouldn't care, I was just inquiring to see if there was another motive that justifies your position.

The rhetoric you have consistently used has pretty much spelled it out. - However, if that assumption is indeed incorrect then I apologize.

I have pirated games before because I disliked a games monetization strategy. - I am not above paying for it either once they overturn their shenanigans, although such an occurrence has been rare and I generally do not support piracy.

However... The difference between net neutrality is that, you don't know what services will be negatively affected until... You know. It comes time to use those services.
Internet provider has a tiff with Youtube and yet there is no Youtube addon package? Stiff shit. Go without or deal with the excessive buffering.

New company just started up that offers a VPN service? Stiff shit, go without or go with a company which your internet provider demands.

It's like with the Netflix shenanigans when bandwidth was being throttled to Netflix, they essentially blackmailed Netflix to pay more, that's not a good thing for consumers... As that erodes on Netflix's profit margins, meaning that they will likely reduce investment in new content or raise their fee's. - You see the flow-on effect right?

That's arguable, what works for other nations does not need to necessarily work for america ... 

Doing things "better" always comes with "trade-offs" too in realistic scenarios such as the closest nation to competing US healthcare research is still in a distant second despite delivering better quality of life statistics ... (in this case no other nations should be depended upon as innovators since they aren't motivated to create better treatments) 

Should we start bringing up relevant points when the likes of China will start doing better in some measures than developed 1st party countries ? 

Why even test me like this ? What do you get out of asking these questions since there's no guarantee that you can absolutely know what I'm saying is truth or not ? 

That's just a red herring ... 

Well if you have pirated games before then don't you feel their pain if some of your customers decided to steal service and goods from you because they thought it wasn't worth the value ? 

It's the effect of net neutrality we don't know about but we do know what service we'll be getting since that is ALWAYS specified in the contract. Lootboxes on the other hand don't give you any guarantee on what content you'll receive ... 

If anyone in America thinks ending net neutrality is a good idea, think about how your cable tv service is provided. You should hate that and you should hate the ending to net neutrality.