Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality

from the ill-communication dept

Why it’s almost as if you can’t take telecom giants (and their lawyers, consultants, and political allies) seriously.

If you recall, the broadband industry and the Trump FCC repeatedly proclaimed that modest consumer protections like net neutrality had dramatically stifled telecom sector investment, and were we to ease regulatory oversight of giants like AT&T and Verizon, it would result in a wave of new sector investment the likes of which we’d never seen before. Ignore the fact that data routinely disproved this claim; this “net neutrality stifled investment” claim was made almost daily by the telecom sector and the wide variety of mouthpieces paid (one way or another) to support them.

Funny thing about that. Despite just having received billions in tax breaks and regulatory favors, AT&T, Comcast, and Charter are all slated to lower their CAPEX and network investment significantly in 2020. Others 2020 CAPEX projections, like Verizon, were entirely flat. This static or reduced investment arrives despite the slow but steady deployment of 5G, the accelerated deployment of which was also a big cornerstone of the net neutrality repeal’s justification:

“Comcast and Charter missed 3Q expectations for capex and guided 2019 lower than previously planned,” wrote the analysts at Nomura’s Instinet in a recent note to investors. “We have lowered our combined 2019 capex forecast for Comcast and Charter from $14.6 billion to $14.2 billion.”

And AT&T…surprised Wall Street analysts with a significantly lower-than-expected capex for 2020. The operator said it expects to spend around $20 billion on capex next year, which is way down from the $23 billion it expects to spend this year and the $22 billion that most Wall Street analysts had expected AT&T to spend in 2020.”

Fewer jobs, higher prices, and lower investment was not what we were promised. It’s the precise opposite of what the endless parade of telecom-linked think tankers, academics, consultants, and other hired mouthpieces claimed would happen. And it’s certainly not what Ajit Pai said would happen when he recently told Congress net neutrality had a disastrous impact on sector investment, despite the fact that biggest study of its kind on the subject ever undertaken just last month showed that net neutrality had no meaningful impact on broadband investment levels whatsoever.

It’s simply no longer debatable, and it’s fairly telling to see which groups and individuals are still trying to push this line of debunked detritus.

Granted this is a con AT&T has been running on the American public for decades now. The company will proclaim that immense broadband deployment and employment gains can be made if the government just lobotomizes itself and does whatever AT&T is demanding at the moment (lower tax rate, fewer regulations, new regulations AT&T supports, merger approval, etc.). When the government inevitably follows through, AT&T’s promises then mysteriously disappear. And like Lucy and Charlie Brown football, nobody in the US seems particularly interested in learning from the experience.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Starlink

"These same ISPs are going to be shocked when the first high-speed low latency internet becomes available from satellites."

Assuming starlink can scale, or even works at all. Neither of which has been shown to date. Sat to sat transmission still has to abide by the laws of physics meaning that either bandwidth will be incredibly low or each satellite will have to be able to consistently pinpoint laser pulse transmissions from a thousand clicks away while moving unpredictably.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Starlink

I cant remember where, but I have seen the statement, but it said that Starlink could serve about 10% of the urban population, but that is not its intended audience. It should serve rural and remote areas well, and those are the areas which have the most need for broadband. The other potential audience are truckers and others who spend long periods on the road, and have a vehicle on which to mount the antenna’ The antenna is described as pizza box size, so it will not replace mobile phones for most road warriors.

R.H. (profile) says:

Re: Re: Starlink

The first public test of Starlink happened on October 22nd when Elon Musk sent this tweet over its network. As the full network hasn’t been deployed, we certainly don’t know if it will scale yet but, it quite clearly works.

Secondly, the laws of physics state that nothing travels faster than light in a vacuum and that’s how the inter-satellite links are designed, they’re literally communication lasers traveling between the satellites so, as long as each satellite has enough computing power to handle the routing, there won’t be any bandwidth issues there.

Thirdly, as Ryuugami points out, orbital mechanics is a nearly solved bit of physics, if it wasn’t, GPS wouldn’t work at all. As long as each satellite knows where its neighbors in orbit are, those and the ground stations are the only things that they need to communicate with. We’ve gotten quite good at that type of communication. (Also to this point, the communications to and from the ground are using radio frequency not laser communications. You have a point there, pointing a laser at a specific point on Earth while traveling at thousands of miles an hour over the surface is quite difficult. It’s not impossible but, the cost per satellite would be far greater.)

Lastly, these satellites are being designed with a ~5-year lifespan so that, as new technology becomes available, the replacement satellites will be able to take advantage of it without having any unexpected replacement costs creeping in.

Anonymous Coward says:

Just shows the greed and short-sightedness of the telecom execs. If they wanted to seal the deal of the whole "Net Neutrality reduced our CAPEX" line, they should have intentionally upped their expenditures this year. Then they could run around and proclaim "see! NN is gone and we’re increasing CAPEX! We told you this was a good thing!"

But no. Business won’t change much for the next couple of years while the lawsuits work through the system, and then the bills will start going up while the service doesn’t change or gets worse.

Anonymous Coward says:

i bet everyone is completely gobsmacked by this news! everyone, that is, except the idiots who agreed the tax breaks and to back the demolishing of Net Neutrality! and yes, that’s the same friggin’ idiots in government positions who have done whatever they could to aid whatever industries would give them ‘campaign contributions’ in return! as usual, the only losers are the public with even more pathetic services, even less options and even higher prices! why in hell dont these politicians get voted out, replaced by some who are at least marginally less corrupt? baffling, totally baffling!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

why in hell dont these politicians get voted out,

Because most people vote for the party that they and their family have always supported, and of those who think before they vote, most have been convinced that to vote for other than a major party is to waste their vote. That is tribalism and vote for the lessor of two evils keeps the two party system and their corrupted politicians in power.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The "marginally less corrupt" politicians are so few and far between that they’ll never overcome the voting onslaught of the corrupt ones. There just aren’t enough at least semi-honest politicians to tip the scales. It’s very doom-and-gloomy but we’re pretty much fucked for life now. There’s no coming back from this without draining the entire swamp, every last one of them, and starting over.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
JoeCool (profile) says:

Not a good analogy

And like Lucy and Charlie Brown football, nobody in the US seems interested in learning from the experience.

That never quite fit. It’s more like every time Charlie Brown misses the football because of Lucy, she makes a million dollars while Charlie Brown goes to the hospital, and the taxpayers foot his bill, and yet we are not allowed to do anything about Lucy.

tom (profile) says:

I doubt NN had anything to do with it. Well before the NN vote, back when Google was still doing major fiber rollouts, both AT&T and Cox were heavily advertising their new Gig speed services in OKC. The moment Google said OKC was off their list, the roll outs stopped. The "coming in days" signs vanished almost overnight in my neighborhood. Cox did slowly roll out gig service over cable but I think that was more a side effect of improving the TV service infrastructure. Months before I moved, AT&T finally came through and finished deploying fiber and speeds went from 6mbs via copper DSL to 50mbs over fiber. But again, I think that was more motivated by AT&T wanting to rip out the copper network then really wanting to improve ISP speeds.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I doubt NN had anything to do with it.

NN never had anything to do with it. It was pointed out many times that while the telecom companies were crying about how NN reduced CAPEX, CAPEX was actually going up. There’s even the AT&T (I think it was them) earnings call where the CEO flat-out stated NN didn’t affect operations.

It’s always been about increasing profits and reducing competition.

ECA (profile) says:

Some odd reason.

its a strange thing in the USA.
When things happen and Fines have to be given esp to LARGE companies..
Its a FIXED/limited amount.

When something bad happens inside a corp that affects the regular Citizens/consumers..its a minor Slap to fine them, it dont even affect their Stock prices or Scare many away from Investing.

More people Listen to the Mouth piece and what they say and do, then to any corruption involved.
We dont even demand that the Owners and Managers Control their own companies.
There is a Corp License, called LLC.. and it was for Smaller companies to protect them. but for Some odd reason, the larger corps have gotten hold of this. Its that the Corp is responsible, NOT the people managing it.. you cant Sue the people. They can take every penny out of the corp and run, and not be held responsible.
I really wonder how other nations Control the corps.. I dont know if the EU does any better, as Many of our corps are Marching across the world. AND we still dont tax them what they are worth. I dont think the other nations get much either. As the corps would just march off and not do business in them.

Might as well be Communism with the corps in charge..Shadowrun here we come(book series)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, I mean, considering that the majority of people in favor NN back in 2015 were saying this exact same thing, and then again when Pai rolled back NN, I can only surmise that you have finally seen the light and now agree with us.

Either that or you are HORRIBLY dishonest and are now trying to twist the facts to try and save face now that we’ve been proven right and you were proven wrong.

Care to try again Richard?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Richard Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Yes, definitely high.

Broadband investment follows a ten year cycle where R & D is followed by spending followed by recouping invest; rinse and repeat.

Following RIF, Comcast invested in providing universal gigabit. They’ve now moved into the R & D phase for 10 gigabit.

You have to explain every little thing to the Techdirt kids.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

And I guess we’re going with dishonest, in addition to poor reading comprehension. Considering that in my previous comment I stated that those in favor of NN said THE EXACT SAME THING (that investment goes in cycles) in 2015 and again when Pai rolled back NN.

But I guess I shouldn’t have expected anything more, it seems impossible for you to tell the truth.

Try again Richard.

Richard Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

The order in question deals with something called the "open Internet," which presumably contrasts with a previous "closed Internet." There’s really nothing in this order about a "neutral Internet" as it allows all sorts of shenanigans in the name of "Non-BIAS Data Services."

Try reading it some time, it’s now a historical document without any force of law but the logic is pretty hilarious.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

The order in question deals with something called the "open Internet,"

Yes, and in order to have an open internet, you have to have net neutrality, which is then laid out in the order. But I do love how you are basically calling yourself stupid because you are pretending you don’t know what either NN or the open internet is in the context presented.

which presumably contrasts with a previous "closed Internet."

If you want to lie about what it actually says, sure. If you’re honest though you’ll note it talks about protecting the open internet. Meaning that is what we have today and nobody wants to see it turn into a "closed internet".

There’s really nothing in this order about a "neutral Internet"

Well, I mean, we’ve already established your reading comprehension skills are so bad that you are borderline illiterate, so I’m not surprised you didn’t understand a word of what you read in that document or that it is all about a neutral internet.

as it allows all sorts of shenanigans in the name of "Non-BIAS Data Services."

Which are explicitly laid out and limited to things like emergency services and critical health care services. You know, kind of similar to how the government can take over your TV, radio, etc… with emergency alert services. So, nothing new there and that is a valid exemption that even net neutrality proponents are fine with. Your attempt to frame it as something else is pathetic. It’s also no different from the extremely narrow and limited exceptions to the First Amendment. Are you going to argue that we don’t have freedom of speech because there are some exceptions?

Try reading it some time

I have. You obviously have not, or are lying about what it says. Take your pick.

it’s now a historical document without any force of law


but the logic is pretty hilarious.

The courts said otherwise since they upheld the order prior to Pai becoming chairman.

Try again Richard.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

Since you seem to be having trouble, here it is in full. And "open internet" is the phrase the FCC chose to use to describe net neutrality. But I’m sure you already knew that and are just playing dumb to try to obfuscate the issue. So is it your position that these orders hampered investment in the broadband sector?

A. Strong Rules That Protect Consumers from Past and Future Tactics that Threaten
the Open Internet

  1. Clear, Bright-Line Rules
  2. Because the record overwhelmingly supports adopting rules and demonstrates that three
    specific practices invariably harm the open Internet—Blocking, Throttling, and Paid Prioritization—this
    Order bans each of them, applying the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access
  3. No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service
    must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and
    well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark
    decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly
    telephone network.
    Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban:
    A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
    person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
  4. No Throttling. The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary
    prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground
    that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard
    against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection:
    A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is
    so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content,
    application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network
  5. The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a
    customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to
    avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application
    effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source,
    destination, or content.17 It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a
    broadband provider’s business model.
  6. No Paid Prioritization. Paid prioritization occurs when a broadband provider accepts
    payment (monetary or otherwise) to manage its network in a way that benefits particular content,
    applications, services, or devices. To protect against “fast lanes,” this Order adopts a rule that establishes
    A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
    person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.

“Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to
directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of
techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of
preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or
otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity.18

  1. The record demonstrates the need for strong action. The Verizon court itself noted that
    broadband networks have “powerful incentives to accept fees from edge providers, either in return for
    excluding their competitors or for granting them prioritized access to end users.”19
    Mozilla, among many
    such commenters, explained that “[p]rioritization . . . inherently creates fast and slow lanes.”20
    there are arguments that some forms of paid prioritization could be beneficial, the practical difficulty is
    this: the threat of harm is overwhelming,21 case-by-case enforcement can be cumbersome for individual
    consumers or edge providers, and there is no practical means to measure the extent to which edge
    innovation and investment would be chilled. And, given the dangers, there is no room for a blanket
    exception for instances where consumer permission is buried in a service plan—the threats of consumer
    deception and confusion are simply too great. 22
  2. No Unreasonable Interference or Unreasonable Disadvantage to Consumers
    or Edge Providers
  3. The key insight of the virtuous cycle is that broadband providers have both the incentive
    and the ability to act as gatekeepers standing between edge providers and consumers. As gatekeepers,
    they can block access altogether; they can target competitors, including competitors to their own video
    services; and they can extract unfair tolls. Such conduct would, as the Commission concluded in 2010,
    “reduce the rate of innovation at the edge and, in turn, the likely rate of improvements to network
    In other words, when a broadband provider acts as a gatekeeper, it actually chokes
    consumer demand for the very broadband product it can supply.
  4. The bright-line bans on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization will go a long way to
    preserve the virtuous cycle. But not all the way. Gatekeeper power can be exercised through a variety of
    technical and economic means, and without a catch-all standard, it would be that, as Benjamin Franklin
    said, “a little neglect may breed great mischief.”24
    Thus, the Order adopts the following standard:
    Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as
    such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably
    disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access
    service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or
    (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices
    available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a
    violation of this rule.
  5. This “no unreasonable interference/disadvantage” standard protects free expression, thus
    fulfilling the congressional policy that “the Internet offer[s] a forum for a true diversity of political
    discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”25

And the standard will permit considerations of asserted benefits of innovation as well as threatened harm
to end users and edge providers.

  1. Enhanced Transparency
  2. The Commission’s 2010 transparency rule, upheld by the Verizon court, remains in full
    A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly
    disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices,
    performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient
    for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content,
    application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet
  3. Today’s Order reaffirms the importance of ensuring transparency, so that consumers are
    fully informed about the Internet access they are purchasing and so that edge providers have the
    information they need to understand whether their services will work as advertised. To do that, the Order
    builds on the strong foundation established in 2010 and enhances the transparency rule for both end users
    and edge providers, including by adopting a requirement that broadband providers always must disclose
    promotional rates, all fees and/or surcharges, and all data caps or data allowances; adding packet loss as a
    measure of network performance that must be disclosed; and requiring specific notification to consumers
    that a “network practice” is likely to significantly affect their use of the service. Out of an abundance of
    caution and in response to a request by the American Cable Association, we also adopt a temporary
    exemption from these enhancements for small providers (defined for the purposes of the temporary
    exception as providers with 100,000 or fewer subscribers), and we direct our Consumer & Governmental
    Affairs Bureau to adopt an Order by December 15, 2015 concerning whether to make the exception
    permanent and, if so, the appropriate definition of “small.” Lastly, we create for all providers a “safe
    harbor” process for the format and nature of the required disclosure to consumers, which we believe will
    result in more effective presentation of consumer-focused information by broadband providers.
  4. Scope of the Rules
  5. The open Internet rules described above apply to both fixed and mobile broadband
    Internet access service. Consistent with the 2010 Order, today’s Order applies its rules to the consumer-
    facing service that broadband networks provide, which is known as “broadband Internet access service”27
    (BIAS) and is defined to be:
    A mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit
    data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including any
    capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications
    service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. This term also encompasses any
    service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service
    described in the previous sentence, or that is used to evade the protections set forth in
    this Part.
  6. As in 2010, BIAS does not include enterprise services, virtual private network services,
    hosting, or data storage services. Further, we decline to apply the open Internet rules to premises
    operators to the extent they may be offering broadband Internet access service as we define it today.
  7. In defining this service we make clear that we are responding to the Verizon court’s
    conclusion that broadband providers “furnish a service to edge providers” (and that this service was being
    treated as common carriage per se). As discussed further below, we make clear that broadband Internet
    access service encompasses this service to edge providers. Broadband providers sell retail customers the
    ability to go anywhere (lawful) on the Internet. Their representation that they will transport and deliver
    traffic to and from all or substantially all Internet endpoints includes the promise to transmit traffic to and
    from those Internet endpoints back to the user.
  8. Interconnection. BIAS involves the exchange of traffic between a broadband Internet
    access provider and connecting networks. The representation to retail customers that they will be able to
    reach “all or substantially all Internet endpoints” necessarily includes the promise to make the
    interconnection arrangements necessary to allow that access.
  9. As discussed below, we find that broadband Internet access service is a
    “telecommunications service” and subject to sections 201, 202, and 208 (along with key enforcement
    provisions). As a result, commercial arrangements for the exchange of traffic with a broadband Internet
    access provider are within the scope of Title II, and the Commission will be available to hear disputes
    raised under sections 201 and 202 on a case-by-case basis: an appropriate vehicle for enforcement where
    disputes are primarily over commercial terms and that involve some very large corporations, including
    companies like transit providers and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), that act on behalf of smaller
    edge providers.
  10. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors
    are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by
    massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the
    use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile
    broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from
    commercial disagreements,
    28 perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last-
    mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the
    potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different
    narratives in the record.
  11. While we have more than a decade’s worth of experience with last-mile practices, we
    lack a similar depth of background in the Internet traffic exchange context. Thus, we find that the best
    approach is to watch, learn, and act as required, but not intervene now, especially not with prescriptive
    rules. This Order—for the first time—provides authority to consider claims involving interconnection, a
    process that is sure to bring greater understanding to the Commission.
  12. Reasonable Network Management. As with the 2010 rules, this Order contains an
    exception for reasonable network management, which applies to all but the paid prioritization rule (which,
    by definition, is not a means of managing a network):
    A network management practice is a practice that has a primarily technical network
    management justification, but does not include other business practices. A network
    management practice is reasonable if it is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a
    legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network
    architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service.
  13. Recently, significant concern has arisen when mobile providers’ have attempted to justify
    certain practices as reasonable network management practices, such as applying speed reductions to
    customers using “unlimited data plans” in ways that effectively force them to switch to price plans with
    less generous data allowances. For example, in the summer of 2014, Verizon announced a change to its
    “unlimited” data plan for LTE customers, which would have limited the speeds of LTE customers using
    grandfathered “unlimited” plans once they reached a certain level of usage each month. Verizon briefly
    described this change as within the scope of “reasonable network management,” before changing course
    and withdrawing the change.
  14. With mobile broadband service now subject to the same rules as fixed broadband service,
    the Order expressly recognizes that evaluation of network management practices will take into account
    the additional challenges involved in the management of mobile networks, including the dynamic
    conditions under which they operate. It also recognizes the specific network management needs of other
    technologies, such as unlicensed Wi-Fi networks.
  15. Non-Broadband Internet Access Service Data Services. The 2010 rules included an
    exception for “specialized services.” This Order likewise recognizes that some data services—like
    facilities-based VoIP offerings, heart monitors, or energy consumption sensors—may be offered by a
    broadband provider but do not provide access to the Internet generally. The term “specialized services”
    can be confusing because the critical point is not whether the services are “specialized;” it is that they are
    not broadband Internet access service. IP-services that do not travel over broadband Internet access
    service, like the facilities-based VoIP services used by many cable customers, are not within the scope of
    the open Internet rules, which protect access or use of broadband Internet access service. Nonetheless,
    these other non-broadband Internet access service data services could be provided in a manner that
    undermines the purpose of the open Internet rules and that will not be permitted. The Commission
    expressly reserves the authority to take action if a service is, in fact, providing the functional equivalent of
    broadband Internet access service or is being used to evade the open Internet rules. The Commission will
    vigilantly watch for such abuse, and its actions will be aided by the existing transparency requirement that
    non-broadband Internet access service data services be disclosed.
  16. Enforcement
  17. The Commission may enforce the open Internet rules through investigation and the
    processing of complaints (both formal and informal). In addition, the Commission may provide guidance
    through the use of enforcement advisories and advisory opinions, and it will appoint an ombudsperson.
    In order to provide the Commission with additional understanding, particularly of technical issues, the
    Order delegates to the Enforcement Bureau the authority to request a written opinion from an outside
    technical organization or otherwise to obtain objective advice from industry standard-setting bodies or
    similar organizations.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

No, "open Internet" is not shorthand for "net neutrality"

Well actually, people do use the two interchangeably. However, even if you don’t, net neutrality is required in order to have an open internet so you’re really wrong either way.

that was explained in the chairman’s statement attached to the 2010 open Internet order.

That might mean something, if we were talking about the 2010 rules, but we’re talking about the 2015 rules. Take your bait and switch tactics elsewhere.

Try again Richard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

That doesn’t mean it isn’t about net neutrality. Remember when I said net neutrality is fairly clearly defined? Yeah, the 2015 rules encompass the majority of net neutrality. Which you knew (because everyone has been calling it the net neutrality rules), you just can’t admit it because you’d then have to admit you were wrong.

Try again Richard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Title II hampered investment.

No, it didn’t. ISPs even came out and said it didn’t. Liar. But we already knew that.

I’m not confident defining net neutrality as it appears to mean whatever you want it to mean.

Well, net neutrality is pretty clearly defined and everyone except you seems to know what it is. If you were actually honest instead of a dishonest industry shill, you would know that.

Try again Richard.

Richard Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

DC Circuit Court begs to differ.

In our view the Commission’s reliance on, and analysis of, the Singer study are reasonable. First, it is but one of numerous studies and trends invoked by the Commission that reached similar conclusions—about which Petitioners say relatively little or nothing specific. These include (1) a study finding that “ISP capital investment increased each year from the end of the recession in 2009 until 2014, when it peaked,” 2018 Order ¶ 90 & n.335; see IA Br. 20–21 (questioning trends in these data); (2) another reporting that wireless capital investment had slowed, with a “precipitous decline in 2016,” id. ¶ 90 n.337; and (3) an article, Thomas W. Hazlett & Joshua D. Wright, The Effect of Regulation on Broadband Markets: Evaluating the Empirical Evidence in the FCC’s 2015 ‘Open Internet’ Order, 50 Rev. Indus. Org. 487 (2017), uncontroverted by Petitioners, on which the Commission drew extensively, see 2018 Order ¶¶ 94 & n.349, 96 & n.358, 98 & n.362, 107, 148 & nn.535– 536. This study relied in part on a “natural experiment” derived from Commission policy changes, showing a “statistically significant upward shift in DSL (Digital Subscriber Line)” investment after the FCC reclassified DSL service as an “information service” in 2005. Id. ¶ 94 DC Circuit opinion in Mozilla v. FCC, pp 76-77


Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

And ISP statements to investors say the DC Circuit Court is wrong. I wonder who is in a better position to make an accurate judgement? Also, didn’t you say regulation had relatively little to do with investment, and instead investment went in cycles? You’re kind of contradicting yourself there.

Try again Richard.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
08:56 AT&T, Comcast Dramatically Cut Network Spending Despite Net Neutrality Repeal (16)
06:18 Ajit Pai Hits CES... To Make Up Some Shit About Net Neutrality (24)
More arrow