FCC Says Gutting ISP Oversight Was Great For Broadband (vice.com) 141
Earlier this week, the FCC proclaimed that broadband connectivity saw unprecedented growth last year thanks to the agency's policies like killing net neutrality. But, as Motherboard points out, that's not entirely true. The lion's share of improvements highlighted by the agency "are courtesy of DOCSIS 3.1 cable upgrades, most of which began before Pai even took office and have nothing to do with FCC policy," the report says. "Others are likely courtesy of build-out conditions affixed to AT&T's merger with DirecTV, again the result of policies enacted before Pai was appointed head of the current FCC." Also, last year's FCC report, which showcased data up to late 2016, "showed equal and in some instances faster growth in rural broadband deployment -- despite Pai having not been appointed yet." From the report: The broadband industry's biggest issue remains a lack of competition. That lack of competition results in Americans paying some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world, something the agency routinely fails to mention and does so again here. [...] Still, Pai was quick to take a victory lap in the agency release. "For the past two years, closing the digital divide has been the FCC's top priority," Pai said in a press release. "We've been tackling this problem by removing barriers to infrastructure investment, promoting competition, and providing efficient, effective support for rural broadband expansion through our Connect America Fund. This report shows that our approach is working." One of those supposed "barriers to broadband investment" were the former FCC's net neutrality rules designed to keep natural monopolies like Comcast from behaving anti-competitively.
"Overall, capital expenditures by broadband providers increased in 2017, reversing declines that occurred in both 2015 and 2016," the FCC claimed, again hinting that the repeal of net neutrality directly impacted CAPEX and broadband investment. A problem with that claim: the FCC's latest report only includes data up to June 2018, the same month net neutrality was formally repealed. As such the data couldn't possibly support the idea that the elimination of net neutrality was responsible for this otherwise modest growth. Another problem: that claim isn't supported by ISP earnings reports or the public statements of numerous telecom CEOs, who say net neutrality didn't meaningfully impact their investment decisions one way or another. Telecom experts tell Motherboard that's largely because such decisions are driven by a universe of other factors, including the level of competition (or lack thereof) in many markets.
"Overall, capital expenditures by broadband providers increased in 2017, reversing declines that occurred in both 2015 and 2016," the FCC claimed, again hinting that the repeal of net neutrality directly impacted CAPEX and broadband investment. A problem with that claim: the FCC's latest report only includes data up to June 2018, the same month net neutrality was formally repealed. As such the data couldn't possibly support the idea that the elimination of net neutrality was responsible for this otherwise modest growth. Another problem: that claim isn't supported by ISP earnings reports or the public statements of numerous telecom CEOs, who say net neutrality didn't meaningfully impact their investment decisions one way or another. Telecom experts tell Motherboard that's largely because such decisions are driven by a universe of other factors, including the level of competition (or lack thereof) in many markets.
Habitual liars run the government? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Since when was it not standard? Can you think of a time? Can you think of any government that did not start off lying?
The entire premise of vote for me and I will do something for you is a "Liar's Game" and nothing else. People think they need government when in reality, government needs people more.
The Governments of mankind have caused more death and suffering of humans than all wars, disasters, or crime has. Think about that for a minute. Additionally, the first people wanting Democracy are the ones
Re: (Score:2)
Lying is what wins elections. Why do you suppose that is?
Because when you watch and listen to propaganda that keeps yelling "EVERYONE IS LYING TO YOU!" 24/7/365 and that only they can be trusted then you don't actually know who is telling the truth.
When you don't know what the truth is then it's easy to be swayed into believing convenient sounding lies that the propaganda keeps repeating.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, do not write as if I had any control over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, everyone does but a lot of people are really shitty. Most of these shitty people are Republicans, so please take your gripes to them.
Re: (Score:1)
No, this is your fight. From here, everybody's just blowing smoke. You can save the GOP/DNC bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
Lying is a requirement to get appointed or elected.
Re:don't forget (Score:4, Informative)
Actually he nominated Pai AT THE DIRECT SUGGESTION OF MCCONNEL to keep the bipartisan makeup of the panel, as was the custom just those few short years ago before Trump's treasonous autocratic gambles.
Pai was the Republican choice and Obama obliged them. One can question the wisdom of catering to that spineless dick cozy Mitchy bitch, but in the end it was SOP to keep the panel bipartisan and Obama did that.
(Your dishonesty does not surprise anyone, GOP cowards.)
Re:don't forget (Score:4, Informative)
Actually he nominated Pai AT THE DIRECT SUGGESTION OF MCCONNEL to keep the bipartisan makeup of the panel, as was the custom just those few short years ago before Trump's treasonous autocratic gambles.
The problem was, that while Obama tried to reach out, be reasonable, get buy in from the republicans for things, they didn't bother. Their idea of bipartisanship was give us 95% of what we want.
I can blame, yet forgive Obama for not speaking out more forcefully towards the end of the election about what was going on. I'm not entirely sure it was the wrong decision, since it might have been spun as desperation on his part. Still, if there are two choices, and one better informs the voters, then I'll be biased to that one every time.
I can blame and never forgive McConnell for the way he treated the attack on our country. It was McConnell that refused to act, when Obama wanted to send a bipartisan statement. Basically its SOP for republicans. Anything to win, period. The correct thing congress should have done is be open with the public. They also should have released Trump's tax returns, since how can the American people make an informed decision without data?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually he nominated Pai AT THE DIRECT SUGGESTION OF MCCONNEL to keep the bipartisan makeup of the panel, as was the custom just those few short years ago before Trump's treasonous autocratic gambles.
Pai was the Republican choice and Obama obliged them. One can question the wisdom of catering to that spineless dick cozy Mitchy bitch, but in the end it was SOP to keep the panel bipartisan and Obama did that.
(Your dishonesty and whattaboutism does not surprise anyone, GOP cowards, nor will it save Trump from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just in trying to tie Pai's decisions to Obama which is entirely indigenous.
FYI, I think the word you were looking for there is "disingenuous".
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a rural area. I use a Verizon MiFi with an unlimited data plan, that was mandated by the FCC in exchange for Verizon getting a chunk of spectrum. I get 34mbps wirelessly, which is enough and beats the crap out of the ~2mbps DSL available.
I live very far from the interstate and have very nice 4g - I wouldn't have been able to purchase my 45 acre plot of land for cheap if not for wireless data, because I work from home and depend on internet. I pay $45/mo for unlimited data.
You seem like you're maki
Predicting future is tough (Score:2)
We went from "killing the NN will be the end of the Internet as we know it" to "unprecedented growth in broadband connectivity last year" not being "entirely true" due to to FCC policies.
The sky still might fall, but for now I hope the folks who claim with complete confidence what will happen in the country and the world might want to reappraise their other claims.
NN Hasn't gone away yet (Score:2)
It can take years for the damage caused by bad policies and ideas to really be felt. That's the problem. It lets you shift the blame. This has been happening since at least Reagan. Folks elect a Republican for a change, the GOP wrecks shit, the Dem comes in and fixes as much as they can, doesn't fix everything in 8 years and then we get another R
Re: (Score:3)
This is not about policy. If an honest candidate comes out with a Democratic Socialist platform and people vote for it, that's fine by me. Vox populi, vox dei -- the voice of the people is the voice of God, the basic principle of democracy. What I object to is the *mob*, the army of self-righteous leftists trying to shut down anyone who wanted to say why he might vote for Trump or disagree with mandatory gender neutral pronouns or why they think ending NN is not necessarily a bad idea and so on. Far worse t
Re: (Score:2)
> Not that you have any evidence OF "mob of self righteous leftists shouting people down"
Check any video of Antifa's behavior at the "freedom marches", or of the protests at speeches by right-wing icons such as Ben Shapiro, or Milo Yananoupolis, or those who merely speak out against the most extreme left-wing politics, such as Jordan Peterson. After some review, the Canadian law is deliberately vague and confusing. And nit's not merely "gender identity added". Jordan makes a convincing point that the leg
Re: (Score:1)
Lying is easy when people aren't interested in the details. Nobody cares. When people do start caring, you will see completely different election results.
How about a more accurate title, ./? (Score:2)
Like: "FCC Falsely Says Gutting ISP Oversight Was Great For Broadband"
Re: (Score:2)
Like: "FCC Falsely Says Gutting ISP Oversight Was Great For Broadband"
More like:
" FCC Says Gutting ISP Oversight Was Great For Broadband Providers"
Not so much for their customers.
They also forget to mention... (Score:4, Insightful)
...that those net neutrality rules had never actually come into effect so claiming that killing them made things better wouldn't make any sense even if the rules were terrible.
Last mile + market consolidation = monopoly (Score:2)
Monopolies were going to happen regardless, see the remedial math above. Government sanctioning the monopoly is to get the telecos to accept regulation in return. Don't like that? The only alternatives are much more strict government regulation to promote competition in the first place, or public ownership of the infrastructure. Two other things that libertarian derp doesn't like, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost miss the days of dialup - monopoly on wires, choice of service providers. Ended up switching as less congested operations sprang up, final switch was to one that supported dial-in to the same subnet they ran their Quake servers on, which meant with 2 phone lines and one account I could game and the wife could dial in on her computer and surf the web
Too Soon. (Score:3)
Heads we win, tails you lose (Score:2)
-If broadband gets worse, advocates were right that the change would make it worse.
-If broadband gets better, it would have happened anyway.
-If there were problems before the change, those are irrelevant and coincidental.
-If there are exactly the same problems after the change, those are because the rules changed.
Nothing can ever shake the faith.
Re: (Score:2)
REAL free market would fix this. Small ISP's would pop up everywhere. GBIT fiber to all homes would be 2 years out. Nobody would pass up that money with the way streaming is going now. The ISP's we currently have don't have to worry about competition. So they don't roll out fiber to every house because they don't need to. The local governments made it possible for them to get their money regardless.
Re: (Score:3)
fox news
Literally liberal propaganda: liberals portraying conservative values in the dumbest way possible so as to discredit them.
but despite all that, it is still somehow liberal propaganda?
Are you retarded?
Re: (Score:2)
Globalist liberals frequently pretend to be conservatives to discredit the policies
Putting aside that it would literally be the dumbest con ever, why do so many conservatives watch Fox New Channel daily if it conflicts badly with their conservative views?
Re: (Score:1)
Putting aside that it would literally be the dumbest con ever, why do so many conservatives watch Fox New Channel daily if it conflicts badly with their conservative views?
For the same reason a bunch of liberals watch CNN: most people are retarded.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
For the same reason a bunch of liberals watch CNN: most people are retarded.
People who watch CNN generally agree with the viewpoints presented Naturally, it follows that people who watch Fox News Channel generally agree with the viewpoints presented.
Just because you do not like what the Republican party has morphed into doesn't make it any less Republican. Deluding yourself doesn't change this fact.
The idea that it's owners/creators are liberal is absurd. They are pushing people toward right-wing fascism which is exactly the opposite of anything liberal and if it were a con then
Re: (Score:1)
People who watch CNN generally agree with the viewpoints presented Naturally, it follows that people who watch Fox News Channel generally agree with the viewpoints presented.
My point wasn't that people don't agree, it was that most people are literally retarded - as in they don't have the capacity to form their own views and process what conservative or liberal actually mean from whichever set of base principles they have. People adopting the views of Fox News aren't conservative any more than people adopting the views of CNN are liberal - both groups are just dumb plebs so lazy or incapable of thought that they parrot what they hear. People who have well enough developed per
Re: (Score:2)
Then if Fox New Channel was really run by liberals and their viewers believe what they say then wouldn't it make sense to push certain liberal ideas into their heads so that they could get leaders elected and legislation passed? What good is discrediting conservatism if you cannot then use it achieve your own goals?
Here's a more plausible explanation: it's run by right-wing money-grubbing corporate fascists who took root in the Republican party back in the 80s after the Fairness Doctrine was ended. Now th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
... wouldn't it make sense to push certain liberal ideas into their heads...
That's not how plebs think.
You clearly do not have a firm understanding of how propaganda works and it would be beneficial to everyone if you didn't make claims about propaganda in the future.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're an expert in propaganda...
It doesn't take an expert to understand the basic concepts.
arguing that the MSM is truth..shocking.
The only thing I've argued is that Fox News Channel is product of the Republicans rather than a conspiracy by "globalist liberals" to discredit conservatism. If you want to claim Republicans aren't conservatives, fine but that doesn't mean they are liberals. It would be far more accurate to classify them as neo-fascists. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
The only thing I've argued is that Fox News Channel is product of the Republicans rather than a conspiracy by "globalist liberals" to discredit conservatism.
Yes, I'm aware. Your only argument being wrong is what sparked this discussion.
Re: (Score:1)
fox news
Literally liberal propaganda: liberals portraying conservative values in the dumbest way possible so as to discredit them.
Okay, this is, without a doubt, the dumbest fucking thing I've read in my 20+ years on Slashdot. It's so fucking stupid, it makes me wonder if *you're* a liberal attempting to discredit conservatives by portraying the dumbest fucking idea possible.
If that is the case... well, trust me, conservatives do not need help in this. At all. They're doing fine all by themselves.
If this is not the case, perhaps you should double-up on the thorazine and stick to finger-painting simplistic landscapes out in the ins
Just came back from 3rd world US (Score:4, Interesting)
I am sitting and charging my car on the way home from the airport. In a whole week in the IS having used residential fiber as well as residential cable modem and TMobile LTE, all I can say is... damn the US is in the dark ages.
I truly was amazed at how bad the internet is in America. It actually is noticeably worse than it was last year at the same time.
And the ridiculous restrictions like only letting 3 devices tether to a phone was just stupid.
I am happy to be back in Europe!
Perspective (Score:2)
Great for broadband if you're an ISP . . . . .
. . . . not so much if you're a consumer.
Guess whose side the FCC is on ?