Despite Claims Title II Will Kill Investment, Comcast Launches Major New 2 Gigabit Deployment

from the watch-what-we-do,-not-what-we-say dept

While broadband ISPs have repeatedly claimed that being reclassified as common carriers under Title II will crush sector innovation, investment, and destroy the Internet as we know it -- they simultaneously continue to do a bang up job highlighting how these claims are complete and utter nonsense. For example, while Verizon was busy proclaiming that Title II would ruin, well, everything, it's been using Title II to reap massive tax benefits. Similarly, despite the fact wireless voice has been classified under Title II for years, that didn't stop the industry from investing massive amounts during that period or spending record amounts at the FCC's latest spectrum auction.

Comcast has similarly proclaimed that if the FCC moved toward Title II it would have a devastating impact on network investment. In fact Comcast's top lobbyist David Cohen had this to say the day the FCC voted to approve Title II rules:
"To attempt to impose a full-blown Title II regime now, when the classification of cable broadband has always been as an information service, would reverse nearly a decade of precedent, including findings by the Supreme Court that this classification was proper. This would be a radical reversal that would harm investment and innovation, as today's immediate stock market reaction demonstrates."
Of course on the day in question telecom stocks actually rallied, suggesting Wall Street wasn't all that worried about the FCC's new rules. Meanwhile, this sudden freeze in investment is nowhere to be found on the news this week that Comcast is going to deploy symmetrical 2 gigabit per second service to an estimated 18 million homes. From the Comcast blog post:
"We’ll first offer this service in Atlanta and roll it out in additional cities soon with the goal to have it available across the country and available to about 18 million homes by the end of the year. Gigabit Pro is a professional-grade residential fiber-to-the-home solution that leverages our fiber network to deliver 2 Gbps upload and download speeds...

Gigabit Pro isn’t the only way we plan to bring gigabit speeds to customers’ homes. We are currently testing DOCSIS 3.1, a scalable, national, next generation 1 Gbps technology solution. We hope to begin rolling out DOCSIS 3.1 in early 2016, and when fully deployed, it will mean almost every customer in our footprint will be able to receive gigabit speeds over our existing network (a combination of both fiber and coax)."
Before people get too excited, remember that Comcast is trying to get its acquisition of Time Warner Cable approved, and as such is probably willing to make any number of promises it may or may not keep. ISPs also often like to conflate homes "passed" with fiber with homes served, so we'll have to see if Comcast actually gets anywhere near that 18 million mark. It's also worth noting that the company's current top-shelf tier of 505 Mbps runs users $400 a month, has a $1000 early termination fee, a $250 installation fee, and a $250 administrative fee. As such, if pricing for the new tier is similar Comcast knows most users won't take the option, with the possible exception of markets where Google Fiber creates downward pricing pressure.

Still, which is it? Does classifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II create telecommunications Armageddon, or do things generally just proceed as normal, the only exception being an FCC equipped to police the most egregious examples anti-competitive behavior? Because increasingly, all signs are pointing to the latter.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2015 @ 11:46am

    Under title ii things do not proceed as normal, the growth of profits slows down a little bit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rich, 2 Apr 2015 @ 11:50am

      Re:

      Even if that were true, so what?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Karl Bode (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:18pm

      Re:

      The only revenue being impacted here is the revenue that could potentially be generated by particularly ham-fisted examples of anti-competitive behavior. There's no rate regulations here, and most of the utility-style regulations haven't been applied in what's a "Title II Lite" approach.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 11:50am

    They have profited for years saying and promising 1 thing then not doing it. All they have to do is keep bribing traitorous politicians to get away with not being brought to task for their lies

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Richard Bennett (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 11:51am

    Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

    Since the day before the FCC’s Title II freakout, CMCSA stock is down from 59.62 to 57.87; VZ is up from 49.20 to 49.57; and AT&T is down from 34.21 to 33.10.

    No, the market didn't rally after Title II was imposed. In fact, the day of the announcement all the telecom stocks were down.

    VZ was the least affected by the Title II freakout since it is already under some common carrier regs in 700 Mhz.

    And no, the mobile networks didn't bid $41B for AWS-3 in order to roll out some tricky new voice service, they bought spectrum for this thing called an Internet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:19pm

      Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

      A quick Google search can confirm that stocks dropped after the Title II announcement, but it didn't happen on Feb. 25th, it happened on March 2nd (or 3rd, or 9th depending on who you look at). Unless you're trying to tell me that it took a few days for stock traders to notice the news and the rise in stock prices after was just a delayed affect from something else. But I think that the general drop in prices (and eventual climb back for two of the three) was related to something else.

      Or it could be what I've been thinking for a vary long time while watching the stock market: Stock prices are bullshit and should not be used as evidence for anything.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:20pm

      Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

      What does this mean to the average American?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Karl Bode (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:20pm

      Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

      AT&T and Comcast are also seeking merger approvals that are highly uncertain, and Verizon is not. Also -- we're talking $1 to $2 declines? Surely the resounding devastation that was supposed to take place would see a more substantive reflection in stock performance?

      Also, you're intentionally ignoring the entire central point of the article.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard Bennett (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:28pm

        Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

        You claimed "telecom stocks actually rallied, suggesting Wall Street wasn't all that worried about the FCC's new rules".

        I don't think any particular day's stock prices reflect Wall St reaction to a change in policy; it was anticipated, so some decline was already priced in, and the details weren't given for some weeks after Feb. 26th.

        In any case, the stock performance of telecom firms has always been weak compared to the OTT firms like Google and Netflix, because broadband carrier profit margins - ROIC - are a fraction of OTT margins.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Karl Bode (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:56pm

          Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

          One, you intentionally trimmed "on the day in question" from that sentence.

          Two, you're still not actually addressing the fact that investment isn't utterly imploding like the industry (and I'm sure you yourself) claimed.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Richard Bennett (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 1:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

            You made a one-day observation in an attempt to mislead and I busted you with a trend line.

            It's actually too early to measure the impact of the White House's regulatory overreach just yet, frankly. That's what journalists are saying.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Karl Bode (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 1:48pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

              "You made a one-day observation in an attempt to mislead and I busted you with a trend line."


              Actually you misquoted me, ignored 90% of the story, and then tried to pretend that very minor drops by two companies undergoing extensive merger reviews were linked to Title II's impact.

              "It's actually too early to measure the impact of the White House's regulatory overreach just yet, frankly. That's what journalists are saying."


              Ah, I see. We'll revisit this in a year's time then.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Richard Bennett (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 2:50pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

                Yes, that will be an interesting time. The FCC will be bogged down in court and the White House regs will still be in limbo.

                I read that a member of Congress is complaining about the recent $1 hike in the price of gas. Price gouging, right?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 12:01pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

                  the White House regs will still be in limbo.

                  What regs are those? The Title II regs didn't come from the White House, so you must be talking about something else.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Richard Bennett (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 12:10pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

                    The DNC calls the Title II regulations "The president's plan". Who are we to dispute the Democratic Party?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      nasch (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 1:16pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

                      The DNC calls the Title II regulations "The president's plan". Who are we to dispute the Democratic Party?

                      Do you generally take everything the Democratic Party says at face value? I sure don't.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Richard Bennett (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 2:11pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

                        I take the Democratic Party as an expert on all things related to the Democratic Party. Where do you get your Dem news, from the Koch brothers?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          nasch (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 2:26pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

                          I take the Democratic Party as an expert on all things related to the Democratic Party.

                          So you believe that A) the FCC is part of the Democratic Party and B) the Democratic Party can be trusted to report on its affairs honestly and accurately? I don't believe either of those things.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Richard Bennett (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 8:12pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

                            There's no way I would expect you to know this, but according to law the FCC must have a majority of Democratic Party-affiliated commissioners when a Democrat occupies the White House. Yes, Virginia, there is politics in Washington, DC and the Democratic National Committee is aware of the president's support of Title II.

                            It's a shock, isn't it?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Richard Bennett (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 1:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

            My POV of investment and regulation comes from comparing investment in mobile and wired broadband networks in the US vs. Europe. The picture is pretty stark.

            In Europe, as in Asia, carriers are encouraged to build cable and fiber networks by deregulation. DSL is heavily regulated in those areas, but the faster networks are not. The fiber networks in Japan and Korea are effectively deregulated because unbundling requires the leasing of multiple strands of fiber at a time.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 12:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

              The fiber networks in Japan and Korea are effectively deregulated because unbundling requires the leasing of multiple strands of fiber at a time.

              Isn't unbundling a result of regulation? What references are you using for these conclusions?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Richard Bennett (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 12:09pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

                I wrote a whole analysis of international broadband that cites the limits on unbundling in Japan, "G7 Broadband Dynamics: How policy affects broadband quality in powerhouse nations". The policy part is toward the end.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 1:22pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

                  "Then, it called for creating fair competition in the telecom sector and facilitating fiber deployment. To this end, the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Post, and Telecommunications (MPHPT), which was then renamed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), utilized the already-introduced asymmetric regulation, interconnection rules, and other related policies in the Telecommunications Business Act. These initiatives finally enabled Japan to achieve its target in only three, not five, years. The asymmetric regulation stipulates the owner of dominant local network (in this case, NTT-E/W) to make its network widely available for any competitors in favorable conditions and does not allow it to prioritize any partner companies; it is widely believed that this asymmetric regulation, accompanied with NTT’s own initiative for open networks made public in February 1995, paved the way for the success of competitive broadband firms, especially ADSL providers, and greatly helped Japan to achieve its goal."

                  That doesn't sound like deregulation...

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Richard Bennett (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 2:09pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

                    Keep reading. The next paragraph gets to fiber:

                    "Since then, the primary focus of Japanese ICT strategies (e-Japan II in 2003, IT New Reform Strategy in 2006, i-Japan Strategy 2015 in 2009, New Strategy in Information and Communications Technology in 2010, and Declaration to be the World's Most Advanced IT Nation in 2013) shifted from expanding broadband coverage to promoting its usage. Expanding broadband coverage to the nationwide market was mostly done by
                    private initiatives, firstly of ADSL operators and then of FTTH providers. The MIC helped their businesses through interconnection rules, reducing access fees to existing network infrastructure, settling disputes among operators, and issuing direct orders if needed. It is important to note that, since the terms of local loop unbundling of fibers could not fully satisfy the need of competing providers, competition in the FTTH deployment is far less than ADSL’s. The main concern for unbundled fiber is that competitors cannot lease a single strand; instead, they have to use a bundle of eight strands even if they need only one strand. This makes it difficult for competitors to make profits in the fiber retail market. On the other hand, competitors can lease a single metal line from NTT-E/W; thus, they can offer competitive ADSL services in the retail market."

                    Like I said, if your regulator wants to move the nation from copper to fiber he regulates the hell out of copper and deregulates fiber.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:23pm

      Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

      -1.75, +.37, and -1.11 respectively.

      Yup, those are some drastic changes there, I'm sure nothing at all could shift stock prices in such a significant amount other than Title II. Clearly the cable companies were right and the very internet itself will soon be destroyed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard Bennett (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:30pm

        Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

        Right, the carriers are doing better than ever and mobile networks bid $41B for spectrum for voice.

        You can't believe everything you hear on the Daily Show.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2015 @ 1:43pm

      Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

      Who cares what Wall Street thinks?

      Oh. Right. Wall Street cares, in that self-serving narcissistic navel-gazing manner that it cares about everything it does.

      Stocks rise and fall on Wall Street all the time -- often in a matter of hours -- based on rumors, hunches, guesses, broken trading algorithms, mistakes, and everything else. Trying to use stock prices as a barometer of anything -- except as a measure of Wall Street's insanity -- is pointless.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Darrin, 2 Apr 2015 @ 2:55pm

      Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

      Richard do you think neutrality will slow down investment, or is the existence of google fiber enough to keep comcast in the game? I know this 2gbps announcement is a reaction to gf, but I'm seeing all kinds of activity in the triangle area; after years of terrible customer service twc is upgrading rapidly. How will net neutrality impact this competition in your opinion?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard Bennett (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 3:57pm

        Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25

        The White House's rules deregulate content and re-regulate carriage, so I expect to see the carriers moving into the content business. Money, like water, flows downhill.

        Korea Telecom offers 2 Gig service even though Google isn't a player; there's more than one cause.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:00pm

    Honestly, I think it's more along the lines of "there is going to be competition in Atlanta with Google Fiber". Thus Comcast actually has to compete with someone offering 1Gbps connections: https://fiber.google.com/cities/atlanta/

    Given that DOCSIS 3.1 was just recently displayed at CES 2015 and I still can't find any modems for sale, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the actual deployment. My guess would be push it out until it's deemed absolutely necessary by competition.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Pronounce (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:00pm

    Corporations care zero about an individual,

    except where an individual can affect their bottom line. As consumers we have some power, and corporations do whatever they can to work the system to motivate us to make themselves more profitable. (If you believe otherwise you're naive.) If you understand their motivation then you can grasp their agenda.

    So the more faith you, as an individual, place in the words of a corporation the more you're a part of their machinations to game the system.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:31pm

    Don't worry

    Before people get too excited


    Given Comcast's history with prevarication and deception, I can't get excited by anything they promise or predict.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    anony@gmail.com, 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:34pm

    Law

    If they make a pledge to do this because they want the deal done then they should be forced to sign binding agreements with sates and prove that they will make sure 18 million people have affordable 2gb internet access , cost not over double that paid for 1gb by the majority of the country which is around $70 or less and if they still cannot get 18 million people signed up they must cut the price until they can... If they go against the binding agreement then they pay google the amount needed to install and implement 18 million customers on to at least 1gb internet contracts of $70 a month.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 12:45pm

      Re: Law

      Funny thing about those 'binding agreements', when they've signed them in the past and failed to live up to them, rather than face any penalty, they just buy out the legislators in the state, who argue that it would be downright unfair to hold the companies to their promises, and the cable companies end up not having to fulfill their end of the bargain, while the public has already been forced to honor their half.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Whoever, 2 Apr 2015 @ 1:49pm

    "Under title ..."

    Under title ii things do not proceed as normal, the growth of profits slows down a little bit.
    Without Title II, the growth of new Internet businesses is stunted.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Scott (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 3:09pm

    who cares if its capped

    Currently in the ATL market...Comcast service is capped somewhere between 200-300 gigs per month. If they make it so much easier to push those limits with higher speeds...thats where they will stick it to people...I'm holding out for Google here in ATL

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    streetlight (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 3:11pm

    Comcast Launches....

    Um, has anyone received residential 2 GBps Internet? Let us know when you do, otherwise "lanch" sounds pretty premature.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jaquer0 (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 7:48pm

    Comcast outrage

    Comcast limits its Atlanta clients to a total traffic of 300MB a month before charging an additional $10 for 50 MB.

    This means that customers could enjoy Comcast's new speed of 2gbps (which equal 250 MB of traffic per second) for a little over one second before Comcast's extortionate "data hog" charges kicked in.

    Assuming only a 1% usage of Comcast's 2gbps offering, which would be 20mbps, or 2.5 megabytes per second, in 2 minutes a user would have consumed an entire month's bandwidth allotment. And that's using only 1% of what Comcast claims they will deliver!

    Charges for usage beyond 300MB/month are $10/50MB, or $30/minute. Again, using only 1% of the capacity Comcast claims it will be offering.

    That works out to $1800/hour, $43,200 a day, which is more than the average American worker earns in a year -- including multimillionaire CEO's in the average!

    Monopolists (and duopolists, in practice there is no difference) should be strictly regulated as common carriers, including --especially-- for their rates.

    They rely on easements (the right to use) public property to run their cables and fibers, as well as publicly-mandated easements from the owners of private property. This for the greater good of the community as a whole, not so they can engage in extortionate price-gouging.

    These sorts of public announcements by public utilities should be binding on them. And when they are shown to be scams, as in this case, the corporations involved should be subject to exemplary punishment, up to and including the corporate death penalty -- forfeiture of their assets without compensation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dan (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 5:58am

      Re: Comcast outrage

      Though I'm not in Atlanta, I've had Comcast residential internet service in other locations. There, the cap was 300 GB, not 300 MB. For a variety of reasons, including my own experience, I think you're off by a few orders of magnitude, but I'll happily consider evidence to the contrary.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jaquer0 (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 7:48pm

    Comcast outrage

    Comcast limits its Atlanta clients to a total traffic of 300MB a month before charging an additional $10 for 50 MB.

    This means that customers could enjoy Comcast's new speed of 2gbps (which equal 250 MB of traffic per second) for a little over one second before Comcast's extortionate "data hog" charges kicked in.

    Assuming only a 1% usage of Comcast's 2gbps offering, which would be 20mbps, or 2.5 megabytes per second, in 2 minutes a user would have consumed an entire month's bandwidth allotment. And that's using only 1% of what Comcast claims they will deliver!

    Charges for usage beyond 300MB/month are $10/50MB, or $30/minute. Again, using only 1% of the capacity Comcast claims it will be offering.

    That works out to $1800/hour, $43,200 a day, which is more than the average American worker earns in a year -- including multimillionaire CEO's in the average!

    Monopolists (and duopolists, in practice there is no difference) should be strictly regulated as common carriers, including --especially-- for their rates.

    They rely on easements (the right to use) public property to run their cables and fibers, as well as publicly-mandated easements from the owners of private property. This for the greater good of the community as a whole, not so they can engage in extortionate price-gouging.

    These sorts of public announcements by public utilities should be binding on them. And when they are shown to be scams, as in this case, the corporations involved should be subject to exemplary punishment, up to and including the corporate death penalty -- forfeiture of their assets without compensation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard Bennett (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 9:44pm

      Re: Comcast outrage

      Comcast announces an upgrade to 2 Gbps symmetrical and you're outraged? Wow.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 11:17pm

        Re: Re: Comcast outrage

        How hard did you have to squint to only see the parts of that post that you wanted to?

        An 'announced' 2 Gbps speed is worse than useless if, as the commentor notes, the data caps they impose on their customers means that using it to even a fraction of it's potential will lead to massive overage charges.

        'Congrats on your new, much more expensive blazing fast internet connection! Oh, you actually used it? Well, let's just add a few more zeros at the end of your bill shall we?'

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Richard Bennett (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 8:08pm

          Re: Re: Re: Comcast outrage

          AT&T has a terabyte cap on their 1 gig service, I'd expect Comcast to adopt something similar. It's not particularly meaningful to believe that the applications of tomorrow will be limited by any of the restrictions of the past (except Title II, of course.)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2015 @ 9:11am

    Am I the only person here who recognizes that Richard Bennett has also been posting on the offensive in a negative manner over on Ars Technica fairly recently about Net Neutrality? I.e. he's been arguing against it.

    Also worth pointing out he works for a think tank that shockingly does some lobbying in a not so shocking manner for the telco companies who have a dog in this fight.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.