FCC Boss Claims Net Neutrality Hurts Small ISPs, But The FCC's Own Data Proves Otherwise

from the fluff-and-nonsense dept

By now we've noted countless times how the claim that net neutrality hurt broadband investment is indisputably false. It's not a debate. Public SEC filings, earnings reports, and numerous CEO statements to investors (who, unlike you, they're legally not allowed to lie to) have disproven this canard. Data suggesting otherwise usually originates with ISP-paid economists more than willing to twist, distort, cherry pick and massage the numbers until they comply with whatever message is being shoveled toward the media this week.

Despite the "net neutrality-killed investment" claim being decidedly false, it never appears to die. ISPs and FCC boss Ajit Pai continue to desperately cling to this claim as if repetition forges reality itself. The claim has played a starring role in nearly every speech Pai has given on this subject, as well as every press release that has been issued by the FCC. The claim popped up yet again recently, when Ajit Pai issued a press release (pdf) claiming that he had been meeting with five small ISPs, all of which claimed that net neutrality had seriously harmed their ability to expand their broadband footprints. From the release:

"I appreciated the opportunity to speak with small providers across the country to hear how the FCC’s 2015 rules are impacting them on a day-to-day basis. One constant theme I heard was how Title II had slowed investment and injected regulatory uncertainty into their business plans--in short, heavy-handed regulation is making it harder for smaller providers to close the digital divide in rural America. By lightening the regulatory burden from Washington, we will unleash providers to do what they do best: serve their communities and provide broadband access to residents across the country."

So one, we've already noted how Pai's breathless dedication to "closing the digital divide" are consistently betrayed by his actions, whether it's his choice to make life easier for business broadband monopolies, to kill broadband programs (launched by Reagan and expanded by Bush Junior) that aid the poor, or to fiddle with broadband deployment metrics to try and obfuscate a lack of competition in the sector. Again, that Pai's biggest priority is protecting the revenues of the industry's biggest and most politically-powerful companies isn't really something that's open to debate. His voting record is very clear on this subject.

Two, while Pai tries to suggest that small ISPs are unified in their opposition to the rules, nearly thirty small ISPs have already come out in opposition to the FCC's plan. Those that support the plan tend to be helmed by partisans more interested in partisan ideological fealty than the mounting evidence that suggests the FCC's agenda is extreme and counterproductive.

That said, Pai's press release claiming that net neutrality hurt small ISPs was completely unaccompanied by any hard data. Worse, when consumer advocates went and looked at the ISPs cited by the FCC release, four out of five of them significantly expanded their broadband deployments in the wake of the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules. AirLink Internet Services in Oklahoma, one of the five ISPs cited by Pai, "more than doubled the number of rural Census blocks in which it offered service after the adoption of the [February] 2015 decision it criticizes," according to a recent FCC filing by consumer advocacy firm Free Press.

Again, the story was the same with four of the five ISPs cited by the FCC. The one ISP that didn't see significant deployment gains (Amplex Internet in Ohio), still managed to deploy gigabit fiber to an additional 18 census blocks during the time net neutrality rules were in place. Again, that's entirely according to the FCC's own data. Data the FCC refused to cite because it proved the exact opposite of the message they wanted to send:

"The data AirLink submitted to the FCC shows that it went from serving 1,482 rural Census blocks at the end of 2014 to more than 3,000 rural blocks by mid-year 2016, he wrote. The company expanded in urban Census blocks as well, going "from 4,251 such blocks to 7,108—an increase of more than 67 percent." The population served by AirLink increased by 64 percent in rural areas and 59 percent in urban areas, Wood wrote.

The ISPs' presentations were "rife with such vague statements and outright errors" but did not include any "dollar signs, deployment data, [or] any other quantifiable metric demonstrating the supposed impact of Title II," Wood wrote. "Perhaps this is because there is no quantifiable harm from Title II, only the anecdotes that these carriers provide when called upon by the Chairman," he wrote."

That's a clever way to state that the FCC's entire justification for repealing net neutrality has been based on fluff and nonsense, not hard data. When the FCC does cite data, it's usually data that originates directly from telecom lobbyists pushing for net neutrality repeal. Much like the FCC's blatant disregard for public and expert input on this proceeding, all of this will make for interesting fodder in the lawsuits coming the agency's way in the new year.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 13 Dec 2017 @ 1:54pm

    Let's ask Mr. Owl, He knows everything!

    The FCC's own data proves that it is profitable to the FCC commissioners to say that Net Neutrality hurts small ISPs.

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

  • icon
    rorybaust (profile), 13 Dec 2017 @ 1:56pm

    Hoping it wont happen but it will

    Indeed as the saying goes "it ain't over till the fat lady sings" but if as suspected the FCC do vote to remove net neutrality I'm actually looking forward to the ensuring court saga, as correct me if I am wrong but the truth matters in those legal places so we might actually get the real truth on the record. Meanwhile European firms learn how to compete in the real world and the once mighty US grow old and fat.

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

  • identicon
    Annonymouse, 13 Dec 2017 @ 2:56pm

    So when will something be done?

    So when will he and his cronies be punished for all out deciet graft and breaking their oath of office.... and as a laeyer will he be disbarred for breaking that oath as well?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2017 @ 4:01pm

      Re: So when will something be done?

      "So when will he and his cronies be punished for all out deciet graft and breaking their oath of office"

      So when will anyone else be punished? Have you seen anyone else volunteering to punish their corrupt politicians?

      Corruption is desired and applauded while people tell you they hate corruption. What they mean is, I only hate corruption when it is used to advance causes I dislike.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2017 @ 3:21pm

    Arstechnica: According to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, an analysis of public comments on the FCC's plan to repeal net neutrality rules found that 2 million of them were filed using stolen identities; some comments were submitted under the names of dead people.

    Clearly, if Net Neutrality is not repealed, the Internet Access Monopolies will have no motivation to make the investments to provide adequate service to cemeteries, which hurts only the poorest and most disadvantaged of all people.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2017 @ 3:27pm

      Re:

      That seems to be a well-documented reason to repeal NN and one of their most convincing so far. Actually, I am now convinced that NN needs to go, to save the dead from lack of access.

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

      • icon
        Seegras (profile), 14 Dec 2017 @ 3:54am

        Just like Copyright!

        You are so right! The dead deserve decent broadband. I mean, we also gave them 70 to 95 years of copyright, so they should be able to spend their gains made with their copyright-monopolies on the broadband-monopolies of the living.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2017 @ 9:12am

          Re: Just like Copyright!

          when you can't get your way, just joke about the problem.

          I does make a good coping mechanism after all.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2017 @ 8:09am

        Re: Re:

        "to save the dead from lack of access."
        and bill their living relatives whether they want it or not

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2017 @ 3:29pm

    "That's a clever way to state that the FCC's entire justification for repealing net neutrality has been based on getting that Verizon payola"

    There, fixed that for you.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2017 @ 3:33pm

    OKAY, every year from now on, I want HARD figures on damage from the change!

    Kids, kids. This is a weak and stupid line, requiring knowledge unobtainable to you too: it's WHAT IF in some "alternate world".

    You haven't even predicted a vague quantity of damage from removing "Net Neutrality", just wail "Doom! Teh end of teh internets!"

    After 20 years, Techdirt STILL can't see how simple it is to spoil their pet notions with a simple reverse...

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2017 @ 5:16pm

      Re: OKAY, every year from now on, I want HARD figures on damage from the change!

      Except for the people who have, including the people who invented the Internet.

      You can wrench yourself from Brett Glass's crotch now...

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    MyNameHere (profile), 13 Dec 2017 @ 4:39pm

    Of Course They Do

    Small ISPs love net neutrality because it limits the business to only providing a blank, empty line, and offering no additional services ever.

    Small ISPs are unlikely to start their own video on demand service, they are unlikely to offer their own music streaming product, and so on. They don't have the money to do it.

    Larger ISPs could move into their area, offer internet at a reduced price, and upsell these sorts of services and drive the smaller guys out of business.

    When it's just a question of naked internet, they would all have similar cost structures, and as a result, other companies can't come into the small guy's territory and offer more than they already do.

    The small guys also can't afford the legal fight. NN puts them in a position where, provided they follow the rules, they cannot get in trouble. They cannot be sued by parties for not providing service as they provide service equally (at whatever level they happen to offer it).

    So yeah, no shit. Small ISPs love anything that keeps them in business and keeps them from paying too much to the lawyers.

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

    • icon
      XcOM987 (profile), 14 Dec 2017 @ 5:41am

      Re: Of Course They Do

      Please highlight for me where in the NN rules it states what services an ISP has to provide and what services they are not allowed to provide in the relms of what you have just stated, keep it limited to the argument you have stated, I'll wait.

      There is nothing in the NN rules to stop comcast starting their own streaming services, If that would be the case why does every major ISP provide their own streaming service?

      All it means is they wouldn't be allowed to favour one streaming service over another because they didn't pay them enough does it now?

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

      • icon
        MyNameHere (profile), 14 Dec 2017 @ 8:16am

        Re: Re: Of Course They Do

        What it means is generally they are not suppose to be able to offer in house video or music streaming products that didn't count against network access datacaps.

        AT&T and Verizon are both doing it, Wheeler was trying to get it shut down but after he was removed from the job, Pai pretty much shut the investigations down.

        "All it means is they wouldn't be allowed to favour one streaming service over another because they didn't pay them enough does it now?"

        Actually, NN was suppose to be about the point where an ISP connects to the outside world. It said that everything coming in had to be treated in the same manner, and that no special deals could be made with individual suppliers.

        In house offerings don't use these gateways, and AT&T and Verizon basically went ahead with cap exempt products. Wheeler hated it, Pai shrugged.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2017 @ 8:13am

      Re: Of Course They Do

      "Larger ISPs could move into their area, offer internet at a reduced price, and upsell these sorts of services and drive the smaller guys out of business."
      ... And then raise their prices and gouge the hell out of the customers... good argument FOR NN

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

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 13 Dec 2017 @ 6:30pm

    News at 11...

    FCC boss is a lying sack of shit.

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

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 13 Dec 2017 @ 9:01pm

    As the deadline draws near, at least NN opponents can take comfort knowing that their perfect streak of never once providing a truthful argument to support their position is in no danger whatsoever of being broken.

    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.