4 ms·
On page 15: > Following the 2014 Notice and in the lead up to the Title II Order, Internet service providers stated that the increased regulatory burdens of Ti
by outsidetheparty 9y ago
On page 15:
> Following the 2014 Notice and in the lead up to the Title II Order, Internet service providers stated that the increased regulatory burdens of Title II classification would lead to depressed investment.
To support this notion, they cite two reports that purport to show that capital expenditure by ISPs went down as a result of common carrier regulation.
The first [1] has data only from 2014 on, so has hardly any "before" data; and shows wild enough variability in the "after" data that it seems unreasonable to draw any conclusions from the average value over such a short time frame.
The second [2] is a convoluted enough statistical analysis that I'm not really able to evaluate it -- though it does appear to show that telecom investment in infrastructure appears to have grown at roughly the same rate as it had since the 1980s (save for some wild up and down swings prior to 2010) -- just not as fast as an invented "control group" of imaginary telecoms that never heard they might be classified as common carriers (see figure 3.)
That's shady, right? It sure seems shady.
[1] https://haljsinger.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/2016-broadband-capex-survey-tracking-investment-in-the-title-ii-era/ https://haljsinger.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/2016-broadband-c...
[2] http://www.phoenix-center.org/perspectives/Perspective17-02Final.pdf http://www.phoenix-center.org/perspectives/Perspective17-02F...
- ComradeTaco 9y agoISPs, like all corporations, always have the best interests of their customers as heart. In the unlikely event that an ISP abuses their position another ISP startup will immediately spring up and start a brand new network.
- glitcher 9y agoYes, exactly. And now I am simply flooded with so many choices in ISPs that I hardly know which one to try next.
- maskedinvader 9y agothis and parent comment is both sarcasm right ?
- L_Rahman 9y agoI think you can safely assume that's the case :)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dboreham 9y agoThis reminds me of the idea of the "irony flag" that I recall discussing with my fellow-immigrants when I arrived in the US years ago, to make its presence clear. But now, thanks to globalization, irony can be easily found in America, along with Marmite and Sam Smith's.
- ComradeTaco 9y agoI apologize for the sarcasm Dboreham, I usually try to make arguments in better faith. The anti-consumerism is just so obscene that I feel like a bit of absurdity is necessary.
- intended 9y agoRidicule and a good memmory are whats needed here. Because this is farce. The ideal communication now would be spot on recall of previous bad behavior, interleaved with humor/abusrdity. The current FCC's communication expects a certain context, and meta cultural structure. If those features are removed (corporate speak, governance speak), and the response are couched in absurdity+accurate facts, then they dont have much. They're claim to authority is undermined and the legitimacy of the action is removed. This is about the way the facts are communicated, as it is about the facts themselves.
- bartread 9y agoIrony was always easy to find in America; the difference is that now Americans can see it too. BOOM! </cheapshot>
- Spooky23 9y agoSurely now with our newfound freedom the robust market conditions brought by Mr. Pai will usher in a new era, where the invisible hand will do its thing.
- outsidetheparty 9y ago::waves magic wand:: "Poof! I'm a telecom!"
- quadrangle 9y agoWell, that makes the gross assumption that customers don't like the abuse. Just because you think some abuse is wrong doesn't mean you should dictate what happens in a consensual agreement between the abuser and the abusee. If they don't like the abuse, they'd leave. /s
- bovine3dom 9y agoThat second link is extraordinary. They are claiming that non-telecoms companies that have similar investment patterns to the telecoms industry before the Title II change can serve as a control. That seems an awful lot like they're begging for a spurious correlation. They might as well have generated a random walk that matched the investment levels.
- outsidetheparty 9y agoThey're all like that, as far as I can tell -- I got so frustrated just reading through the citations that I couldn't get any farther than the one with the dire warning that "broadband investment ticked down a billion dollars in 2015" after the net neutrality rules were introduced -- followed by a bar chart showing investment ranging mildly up and down by a billion or so per year for like a decade of stability.[1] Maybe that's the strategy: to just cause all their opposition to expire from sheer outrage at their disingenuousness. If so, it seems to be working in my case at least! [1] https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/Broadband%20Investment%20Down%20in%202015.pdf https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/Broadband%20In...
- gavinpc 9y ago> Maybe that's the strategy: to just cause all their opposition to expire from sheer outrage at their disingenuousness. On this and everything. What on earth can we do about it? It's like that Star Trek TNG where they defeated the Borg by showing them a paradoxical image whose explosion of contradictions was carefully designed to sabotage their entire logic subsystem, rendering them impotent. And we're the Borg.