Ajit Pai Offers No Data For Latest Claim That Net Neutrality Hurt Small ISPs (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: With days to go before his repeal of net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai issued a press release about five small ISPs that he says were harmed by the rules. Pai "held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country -- from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota," his press release said. On these calls, "one constant theme I heard was how Title II had slowed investment," Pai said. But Pai's announcement offered no data to support this assertion. So advocacy group Free Press looked at the FCC's broadband deployment data for these companies and found that four of them had expanded into new territory. The fifth didn't expand into new areas but it did start offering gigabit Internet service. These expansions happened after the FCC imposed its Title II net neutrality rules. (Title II is the statute that the FCC uses to enforce net neutrality rules and regulate common carriers.)

Comments

Re:I'm getting tired of all the NN rehetoric...

[Anonymous Coward]

" But I'm going to add that usually the desperate ones are desperate because they are discovering they are wrong and that they are losing the fight because of it."

I guess you think the Native Americans 'discovered they were wrong' and THAT explains their desperation on the Trail of Tears? Try again with your dumb over generalization buddy. This one flies as well as lead balloon.

"...across the country..."

[DaveM753]

"...held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country -- from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota..."

Just FYI, for those without a map handy, that covers 8 out of 50 states, all in the midwest:
Montana to Minnesota = Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota.
Oklahoma to Ohio = Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.

Again...just FYI.

Re:Kinda like the death-tax hurts farmer lie

[bajan_on_ice]

Unless your farmer has >$5M in assets, the estate tax does not apply to him. And the reason behind the estate tax is to avoid the increasing accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few. Whether or not the government is incompetent at handling the cash is besides the point.