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.
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.)
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Most of Silicon Valley is pretty clueless about what think tanks do. This enterprise may be valuable but it's not a think tank.
Similarly, the four "innovation principles" strike me more as organizational values than ideas that have anything to do with innovation, and even at that they're more appropriate to non-profits than to businesses.
Apple is the most innovative company in Silicon Valley and their business model doesn't follow this template at all. Apple is not nearly as much an imitator who depends on incremental improvement as most of today's California and NYC startups are.
There's certainly a place for the 18th social network, the 15th CDN, the 5th SMS alternative, the 100th online tech institute, the Netscape dumpster divers, and the open source alternative to all the other blogging platforms, but it's mostly about serving niches with vertical plays to specialized audiences.
But a Silicon Valley think tank would have to claim to disrupt the traditional mold to gather any eyeballs at all, so there's that. This will be amusing to follow, and with some perseverance and luck it could pivot in a useful direction.
BTW, innovation is about empowering users and improving their quality of life by providing them with novel and valuable products and services; there are many ways to do that.
Right, politicians are all crooked. So why would anyone think city councils are less corrupt than state legislatures, or, God forbid, crony appointees to a federal regulator would be less corrupt than elected officials?
Just trying to make sure I'm being irrational and inconsistent in the approved manner.
This is a good illustration of how Bode in particular and TechDirt in general misleads readers. Bode says: "These twenty or so laws, as we've explored in detail, are written and lobbied for by incumbent ISPs and prohibit towns and cities from deciding for themselves what they should be able to do regarding local telecom infrastructure." Thus, he claims that 20 (or so) state have passed laws protecting private broadband networks at the best of ISP lobbyists. When we look at the "detailed" examination, Bode mentions only one state, Kansas, and claims "more than a dozen states" are protecting ISPs. For reference, he cites a blog written by Jon Brodkin, someone who is actually less credible than Bode. Brodkin simply re-writes a list provided by the ISLR, a consulting company that advises local governments on how to build their own networks.
The fact is that the "more than a dozen" or "twenty or so" laws that restrict local government entry in broadband span a wide range of conditions. Four states require local referenda; these include Colorado and Iowa, two states in which a number of such referenda have passed. Cedar Falls Iowa passed one, and 6 of 7 Colorado cities passed such referenda in November. So these laws aren't protecting capitalist firms as much as they're protecting tax payers.
In five other states, laws simply give current operators the right of first refusal for new networks, and six states have laws requiring public hearings, feasibility studies or written business plans, things that should be done anyway.
In other words, the article is false and misleading from the title all the way through to the last word, and it's only purpose is to raise your ire by making you believe a conservative Congressman in the pocket of the ISPs is out to deprive you of your freedom. And to keep you coming back for more manufactured outrage.
Any law we don't like is passed by lobbyists, and any law we do like is passed by appointed shills at the FCC.