Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality

from the learning-nothing-from-history dept

I’ve talked a lot about how the Trump net neutrality repeal was a massive con. It effectively gutted the FCC’s consumer protection oversight at telecom monopoly behest, then tried to ban states from being able to protect US consumers as well. Worse, it was based on a bunch of absolute bullshit about how doing this would spur network investment, create jobs, and result in amazing new innovation. All propped up by bad data and fake and dead people hired by the telecom industry. It was a massive ploy to further obliterate meaningful oversight of predatory, widely disliked regional telecom monopolies under the guise of progress.

And it worked flawlessly. None of the promised benefits materialized, but the industry got everything it wanted, namely: regulators too enfeebled to do much about US telecom market failure, high prices, and limited competition. Worse perhaps, the dumb gambit was all propped up by a select number of experts and press outlets that appear to have learned absolutely nothing from the experience.

Like Axios, for example. As we recently noted, Biden’s executive order prods the FCC to restore net neutrality and the agency’s Title II authority over broadband providers. The FCC can’t do this until the Biden administration gets around to actually staffing the FCC. The simple act of appointing and seating a new agency boss alone could take much of this year, so any real action on more contentious issues like net neutrality likely won’t happen for some time.

But the telecom industry is getting a running start undermining such efforts by trotting out the same nonsensical talking points they’ve been using for fifteen years. And they’re getting the inadvertent (?) help of outlets like Axios, which this week parroted a long list of false industry claims verbatim without even bothering to fact check them. Such as the idea that Trump regulators engaged in “light touch” regulation (aka: letting AT&T do whatever the fuck it wants), which frames doing anything other than that as something heavy handed.

Then there’s this utterly false Axios claim from unnamed “industry leaders” that net neutrality harms network investment:

“Industry leaders fear net neutrality rules will pave the way for the government to set broadband prices and have argued that the rules deter investment in the sector.”

First, the US government is terrified of seriously regulating broadband prices. It’s treated as the most radical policy proposal possible by the majority of both campaign-cash slathered parties. I doubt even under the most progressive of potential Biden appointments would the FCC seriously regulate broadband rates. Even when the agency has expanded consumer protection rules (like net neutrality), they’ve gone to comical lengths to avoid treating broadband like a utility or regulating prices (see: the forbearance language in the 2015 net neutrality order). The threat of this happening has been used by industry for scare-mongering purposes for 25 years, yet it never materializes, even if treating broadband more like a utility might make sense given broadband’s essential nature (see: Covid).

Second, it takes about sixty seconds of research to find that the claim that “net neutrality hurt broadband investment” was never actually true. Yes, AT&T, Comcast, and friends claimed that net neutrality rules hampered investment, but there are several different studies now showing how that claim was absolutely false. And ample earnings reports, SEC filings, and other data showcasing how AT&T and others cut network investment in the wake of the repeal. There’s even a long list of industry CEOs on the public record making it very clear net neutrality didn’t impact investment.

If you’re a reporter and you you feel the need to give an industry lobbyist ample room to make various claims, you should at least point out where that lobbyist might not be telling the truth so your readers have some vague idea where the truth actually is. But Axios doesn’t do that. Instead, it lets former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Mike Powell make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims about what net neutrality is (or isn’t): :

“Net neutrality has become an expensive, time-wasting exercise that has little real world effect,” Michael Powell, president of cable trade group NCTA, said in a statement. “The drama detracts from focusing on genuine broadband issues, most critically our collective effort to get broadband to communities that lack service.”

Again, the “real world effect” was that the FCC was left largely powerless to protect consumers right before a pandemic struck and gave everybody a painful crash course on the importance of broadband. The “real world effect” was that the repeal left federal and state regulators less prepared to rein in billing fraud (like bogus fees) and other harms of mindless monopolization (aka limited competition). And the “real world effect” was that with neither competition nor regulatory oversight to constrain them, regional telecom monopolies doubled down on shitty behavior, price hikes, and layoffs just as most folks predicted.

Axios proceeds to quote a Powell claim (again unchallenged) that doing anything other than letting AT&T dictate all federal telecom policy is doomed to failure:

“Of course, we can all suit up to play another game of ping pong, with yet another administration, but the inevitable years-long regulatory proceeding, exhaustive court challenges and likely trip to the U.S. Supreme Court some three or four years from now serves no one.”

Yes, ideally you’d want Congress passing a net neutrality law to prevent the wobbling back and forth of the FCC as it shifts between parties. But because the US Congress is a corrupt mess in thrall to telecom monopolies, that’s not happening anytime soon. And yes, the FCC restoring its consumer protection authority might run face-first into a rightward-lurching Supreme Court, but your alternative is to simply not try to do anything to fix this corrupt dysfunction, which is certainly AT&T and Comcast’s preferred endgame.

Again, the net neutrality repeal didn’t just kill “net neutrality rules,” it gutted the FCC’s consumer protection authority and tried to ban states from filling the consumer protection void. And again, the repeal involved a whole lot of dodgy data and outright fraud on the part of the telecom lobby. A reader walks away from the Axios piece understanding exactly none of that. The entire piece is a perfect example of the problem with “view from nowhere” or “he said, she said” journalism, where the truth gets lost somewhere amidst efforts to create the kind of bland, illusory balance that won’t offend sources or advertisers.

You’d like to think the press learned a little something from the net neutrality repeal and the last four years of Trumpism, but as the net neutrality (read: basic oversight for regional telecom monopolies) debate heats up once again, there’s already ample evidence that’s simply not the case.

Filed Under: , , , ,

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 “Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

""Industry leaders fear net neutrality rules will pave the way for the government to set broadband prices"

If you don’t know what net neutrality is or what it does, I suppose it makes sense.

""Net neutrality has become an expensive, time-wasting exercise that has little real world effect,""

Weird, it’s the default setting outside of the US, and we have cheaper, better internet access than you do.

As with healthcare debates, I’m sure someone will be along soon to explain why better service at cheaper prices with more freedom to move around and less hidden charges is awful for me.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Bobvious says:

Re: healthcare

Really Paul.

Can’t you imagine how much better telehealth and remote surgery could be if only advertisements could be inserted into the medical data stream of live surgery? AI and ML could be real-time analysing your online ECG and either suggesting what expensive treatments are available, or serving up the names of local Funeral Directors, or worthless life-insurance policies. It’s Un-American anti-freedom socialist universal-healthcare wowserism that’s driving the US economy into the ground.

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

Re: Re: healthcare

I’m sure that the utopia you describe would be amazing, but alas I’m stuck here with pesky publicly funded healthcare. I only have the ability to access quality healthcare with no risk of financial ruin, topped up by by employer provided private healthcare. I might even encounter a situation where an actual doctor performs triage and I can’t use either method to push to the front of the queue because both have restrictions on resources.

Truly a nightmare, and don’t get me started on my 1Gbps fibre connection that costs me less than $100/month with mobile and TV included..

I’m sure someone out there will be taking this without the required /s…

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: healthcare

"…if only advertisements could be inserted into the medical data stream of live surgery?"

You think small, friend. Imagine the suture for your appendectomy being the embroidery of the Nike or Coca-cola logo. Your lasik surgery now leaves a faint image of the L’Oreal logo overlaying your vision and your vasectomy now comes with a cute lasered-in Durex Big Boy ad over the entry scar.

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

Koby (profile) says:

Maybe They Did

You’d like to think the press learned a little something from the net neutrality repeal and the last four years of Trumpism

One of the important takeaways from Trump’s time is that credibility matters. And just as how the corrupt media got wrecked in 2016, so did Net Neutrality proponents when they did their chicken little prediction back in 2017. Perhaps Axios’ article isn’t the best. But it sure is better than the predictions that the internet would break if the government repealed net neutrality. So let there be a competing viewpoint. Competition is good, and it might earn Axios some credibility if their prediction is better than the others. Give neutral reporting viewpoints a chance, and let readers decide.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Maybe They Did

I, uh, think you missed that the internet didn’t break because of all the state-level laws and AG threatening to regulate the telecom monopolies since Ajit Pai disbanded the rules and the FCC’s authority to enforce them, meaning the telecoms were on their best behavior.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Maybe They Did

"One of the important takeaways from Trump’s time is that credibility matters"


I mean, we knew you were ignorant of reality, but I at least didn’t know how bad your delusions were.

"But it sure is better than the predictions that the internet would break if the government repealed net neutrality."

The predictions were not that it would break completely, the predictions were that you would continue to get fleeced for lower quality service while major conglomerates with interests outside of the ISP space would use their ability to lock out and destroy competing services.

"So let there be a competing viewpoint"

There is, you’re just too dumb to understand that you support the system that stifles it. Where I live, I have net neutrality, real choice, lower prices and more freedom than you do.

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

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did

If you give Trump credibility even though he is a self professed liar, cheater and grifter; why should anyone listen to you then? You just confessed to liking those characteristics which mean anything you say or do are suspect since you lack the ability to make rational choices.

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

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Maybe They Did

So an abusive, venal, doddering, womanizing early stage alzheimer buffoon with a bad hairdo who can’t even understand what direction a fleet is sailing is more cridibly than all the variaous media outlets who report on and expose the Alt-right lies. In your judgment, Trump is more credible and less corrupt than the Washington Post, right?

Remind me never to ask you for advice on anything that requires judgement.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Maybe They Did

^^^^ The sad thing here is, despite all the orange grifter bashing in response, not undeserved mind you, is that they may not be that far off the mark.

News as a vehicle for advertising isn’t new, same for being at some points entertainment but what is new is that those two are now at the forefront if not the only function of most outlets.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Maybe They Did

Remember he is claiming they lost credibility in 2017. So its the same mix of "Russia Hoax" (What the hoax is being a shifting set of goalposts), "Trump didn’t cause WW3" (Missing that concerns were about the means, not the ends), and "the unite the right rally was actually peaceful and the person who got hit by a car had a simultaneous heart attack unrelated to being mowed down by a car in that moment" (Which rests on defining the rally as only the parts where anti-semitism, racism, or violence weren’t happening). So lots of propeganda and lies from Koby.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Maybe They Did

I actually saw an online commenter refer to this in passing. Claimed that the car was attacked by the crowd then struck the victim when trying to escape, in a panic. Despite copious online video showing the events happened in the exact opposite order.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Maybe They Did

Despite copious online video showing the events happened in the exact opposite order.

Kind of similar to when Koby called Jan 6 a "kerfuffle" even though there is ample evidence, video and testimonial, that it was a violent attempt to overthrow the process of validating Trump’s major loss.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Maybe They Did

The right wing are currently in the process of trying to pretend that the cop who was bludgeoned didn’t die as a result of his injuries, but of a totally unrelated illness the following day, while the woman who was shot was a poor innocent victim who was just wandering round the place like any tourist would. They also claim that Chauvin is an innocent political prisoner because George Floyd died of unrelated drug overdose, and that cities actually burned to the ground last year but no BLM activists have ever been arrested. Not to mention their fantasies about vaccines and who is really dying due to COVID.

We’re at the point where actual documented reality won’t sway these people. I’m not sure what the next step is, I’m just glad I’m nowhere near them personally.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Maybe They Did

"The right wing are currently in the process of building themselves into the well-worn template of militant and political faction dedicated to politics by violence."*

Hope you don’t mind if I FTFY, PaulIT.
The current GOP looks like the Sinn Fein of olden days. The politicians willing to exculpate, downplay, cover up and fundraise for the ones with guns and bombs.

Youtube search; "Beau of the fifth column pelosi veto".

I think what we’re seeing is the early days of emergent organized domestic terrorism. The only thing casting that in doubt might be the sheer stupidity and reality denial of most of the recruiting base. ISIS couldn’t have grown to size in a nation with any form of law enforcement, after all.
Yet again that doubt depends largely on significant parts of law enforcement not being sympathizers as well…

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did

"And yet, he still has greater credibility than the corrupt media."

Yeah, Fox news and OANN sure did break the bar. When their most popular hosts have to stand in front of a judge and claim their whole show was parody no sane person could take seriously that surely should have sunk their credibility.

As for just about every other news agency not willing to engage in reality denial, no. Trump still holds the title of greatest liar.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Maybe They Did

"No, I still trust Fox News more than I trust Trump."

That’s…not a high bar to clear. I mean if Trump never has a stopped clock moment but Fox is right twice a day, metaphorically…that still puts both of them in the "liar, liar, pants on fire" category with miles to spare.

Also, it’s unfair to claim trump was never right.
When he campaigned in Ohio he wondered out loud how stupid the people in Ohio were. And they proved him right by voting for him.
He was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall and let’s be fair; If he’d managed to make the pandemic just a little worse on the US side, Mexico would gladly have built that wall.
And if he’d shot someone on fifth avenue none of his voter base would have disagreed with Dear Leader’s personal interpretation of the ermächtigungsgesetz.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Remember kids, offer no pushback when the right does something that makes life worse for you, because any repeal of their bad policy could be repealed. Just roll over and show your belly, they surely won’t be emboldened and keep pushing worse policies until their own policies of previous years are decried as dangerous socialism when proposed as compromises. Thanks, Axios!

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
TaboToka (profile) says:

Ahh, remember the good old days?

As a sufficiently-grey hair, I remember when the airline industry was regulated. What happened is the airlines competed on amenities and service.

Now, imagine if the ISP industry was regulated:

  • Prices would be standardized across carriers (adjusted by local market cost of living, perhaps) and managed by a Public Utility Commission.
  • Rate caps eliminated, content neutrality required
  • Standardized privacy practices mandated and enforced.
  • Carving up territory/creating monopolies would be prohibited.
  • Service Level Agreements would be required and enforced.
  • Municipal WiFi would be allowed unhampered and subsidized by fees to ensure everyone has decent access (especially where there is only one ISP)

Thus the ISPs would be all on a level playing field, more or less. What to do? Complete on amenities and service.

  • No more crappy customer service ("press 0 to hold for another 45 minutes")
  • Better/faster speeds
  • Content included (netflix/disney/hulu/whatever)
  • No more crappy equipment rentals — hell, the equipment they do provide is top-notch.

…but that would cut into their obscene profits. And temporarily mess with their stock. And make baby Jesus cry (probably).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Ahh, remember the good old days?

"Now, imagine if the ISP industry was regulated"

You don’t have to imagine, you just have to look at how they operate in the many countries where they are effectively regulated. Countries which, generally speaking, have more choice, lower prices and fewer hidden costs, and often don’t even have bandwidth caps and other limits (on non-mobile connections at least).

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.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: innocuous leader

I’m getting hungry! Clicking over TWO hundred times is hard work!

Why do you make your system so difficult to use, Maz? You must be doing yourself lots of "collateral damage"!

And key flaw is your site is too small: ALL comments are seen. Then that your own piece is totally locked down is just sign of how weak you are!

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Relevant to next Maz piece, which is locked down!

Biden Administration Completely Kills The "It’s A Private Company So It’s Not Censorship" Argument

"The Biden administration is telling Facebook which posts it regards as `problematic’ so that Facebook can remove them," Glenn Greenwald said on Twitter in response to the news. "This is the union of corporate and state power – one of the classic hallmarks of fascism – that the people who spent five years babbling about fascism support."

"If you don’t find it deeply disturbing that the White House is flagging' internet content that they deemproblematic’ to their Facebook allies for removal, then you are definitionally an authoritarian," Greenwald said. "No other information is needed about you to know that. There is no circumstance – none – in which it’s acceptable for the White House or any other agency of the government to be providing lists to Facebook of problematic' content it wants removed, yet that's exactly what Psaki says they're doing. The White House is admitting that they're compiling lists of people who they claim are posting content they regard asproblematic’ and that constitute

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Relevant to next Maz piece, which is locked down!

The best part is Mike could turn off the lights and become a n internationally renowned professional shark wrangler and it would be months before blue balls had the slightest suspicion something was amiss.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

see: the forbearance language in the 2015 net neutrality order).

AKA this language:

B. Promoting Investment with a Modern Title II

  1. Today, our forbearance approach results in over 700 codified rules being inapplicable, a
    “light-touch” approach for the use of Title II. This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no
    tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules,
    which results in a carefully tailored application
    of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open Internet and more,
    better, and open broadband. Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees;
    the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax
    38. This is Title II tailored for the 21st Century. Unlike the application of Title II to
    incumbent wireline companies in the 20th Century, a swath of utility-style provisions (including tariffing)
    will not be applied.
    Indeed, there will be fewer sections of Title II applied than have been applied to
    Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), where Congress expressly required the application of
    Sections 201, 202, and 208, and permitted the Commission to forbear from others. In fact, Title II has
    never been applied in such a focused way.

D. Broad Forbearance

  1. In finding that broadband Internet access service is subject to Title II, we simultaneously
    exercise the Commission’s forbearance authority to forbear from 30 statutory provisions and render over
    700 codified rules inapplicable, to establish a light-touch regulatory framework tailored to preserving
    those provisions that advance our goals of more, better, and open broadband. We thus forbear from the
    vast majority of rules adopted under Title II. We do not, however, forbear from sections 201, 202, and
    208 (or from related enforcement provisions),

    46 which are necessary to support adoption of our open
    Internet rules. We also grant extensive forbearance, minimizing the burdens on broadband providers
    while still adequately protecting the public.

Section 201:

SEC. 201. [47 U.S.C. 201] SERVICE AND CHARGES.
(a) It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or
foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; and, in accordance with the orders of the
Commission, in cases where the Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds
such action necessary or desirable in the public interest, to establish physical
connections with other carriers, to establish through routes and charges applicable
thereto and the divisions of such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and
regulations for operating such through routes.
(b) All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in
connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any
such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is
hereby declared to be unlawful: Provided, That communications by wire or radio
subject to this Act may be classified into day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter,
commercial, press, Government and such other classes as the Commission may
decide to be just and reasonable, and different charges may be made for the
different classes of comunications: Provided further, That nothing in this Act or in
any other provision of law shall be construed to prevent a common carrier subject
to this Act from entering into or operating under any contract with any common
carrier not subject to this Act, for the exchange of their services, if the Commission
is of the opinion that such contract is not contrary to the public interest: Provided
further, That nothing in this Act or in any other provision of law shall prevent a
common carrier subject to this Act from furnishing reports of positions of ships at
sea to newspapers of general circulation, either at a nominal charge or without
charge, provided the name of such common carrier is displayed along with such
ship position reports. The Commissioner may prescribe such rules and regulations
as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Section 202:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or
unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations,
facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly
or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or
locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
(b) Charges or services, whenever referred to in this Act, include charges
for, or services in connection with, the use of common carrier lines of
communication, whether derived from wire or radio facilities, in chain broadcasting
or incidental to radio communication of any kind.
(c) Any carrier who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall
forfeit to the United States the sum of $6,000 for each such offense and $300 for
each and every day of the continuance of such offense.

(Section 208 outli es the process of filing a complaint with the FCC)

Other sections:

  1. In addition, we do not forbear from a limited number of sections necessary to ensure
    consumers are protected, promote competition, and advance universal access, all of which will foster
    network investment, thereby helping to promote broadband deployment.
  2. Section 222: Protecting Consumer Privacy. Ensuring the privacy of customer
    information both directly protects consumers from harm and eliminates consumer concerns about using
    the Internet that could deter broadband deployment. Among other things, section 222 imposes a duty on
    every telecommunications carrier to take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality of its
    customers’ proprietary information.47
    We take this mandate seriously. For example, the Commission
    recently took enforcement action under section 222 (and section 201(b)) against two telecommunications
    companies that stored customers’ personal information, including social security numbers, on
    unprotected, unencrypted Internet servers publicly accessible using a basic Internet search.48
    unacceptably exposed these consumers to the risk of identity theft and other harms.
  3. As the Commission has recognized, “[c]onsumers’ privacy needs are no less important
    when consumers communicate over and use broadband Internet access than when they rely on [telephone]
    Thus, this Order finds that consumers concerned about the privacy of their personal
    information will be more reluctant to use the Internet, stifling Internet service competition and growth.50
    Application of section 222’s protections will help spur consumer demand for those Internet access services, in turn “driving demand for broadband connections, and consequently encouraging more
    broadband investment and deployment,” consistent with the goals of the 1996 Act.51

  4. Sections 225/255/251(a)(2): Ensuring Disabilities Access. We do not forbear from those
    provisions of Title II that ensure access to broadband Internet access service by individuals with
    disabilities. All Americans, including those with disabilities, must be able to reap the benefits of an open
    Internet, and ensuring access for these individuals will further the virtuous cycle of consumer demand,
    innovation, and deployment. This Order thus concludes that application of sections 225, 255, and
    251(a)(2) is necessary to protect consumers and furthers the public interest, as explained in greater detail
  5. Section 224: Ensuring Infrastructure Access. For broadband Internet access service, we
    do not forbear from section 224 and the Commission’s associated procedural rules (to the extent they
    apply to telecommunications carriers and services and are, thus, within the Commission’s forbearance
    Section 224 of the Act governs the Commission’s regulation of pole attachments. In
    particular, section 224(f)(1) requires utilities to provide cable system operators and telecommunications
    carriers the right of “nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or
    controlled” by a utility.54
    Access to poles and other infrastructure is crucial to the efficient deployment of
    communications networks including, and perhaps especially, new entrants.
  6. Section 254: Promoting Universal Broadband. Section 254 promotes the deployment
    and availability of communications networks to all Americans, including rural and low-income
    Americans—furthering our goals of more and better broadband. With the exception of 254(d), (g), and
    (k) as discussed below, we therefore do not find the statutory test for forbearance from section 254 (and
    the related provision in section 214(e)) is met. We recognize that supporting broadband-capable networks
    is already a key component of Commission’s current universal service policies. The Order concludes,
    however, that directly applying section 254 provides both more legal certainty for the Commission’s prior
    decisions to offer universal service subsidies for deployment of broadband networks and adoption of
    broadband services and more flexibility going forward.
  7. We partially forbear from section 254(d) and associated rules insofar as they would
    immediately require mandatory universal service contributions associated with broadband Internet access
That One Guy (profile) says:

RIght for all the wrong reasons

The part I find the funniest is that industry stooge Powell is correct in what he’s saying, just not in the way he thinks he is or wants people to think he is.

The network neutrality ‘debate’ has been an expensive, dragged our process because the industry he serves throws fits over any regulations they haven’t written, but that’s entirely on them refusing to accept that there might be any limits to how badly they can fleece the public.

Likewise if price regulations are even possibly on the table(they almost certainly aren’t) that’s probably because the companies involved have shown themselves to be so eager and quick to rip off their captive customers that regulating how badly they can do that starts to look like a reasonable choice if the government won’t regulate them directly.

To the extent that the problems he list exist they are entirely due to the industry he’s cheering on which makes him using them to argue that regulations are absolutely not necessary beyond rich.

As for Axios a pity but I guess another ‘news’ outlet has decided to turn PR firm, just posting whatever the hell someone hands them without question.

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