Slashdot Mirror
FCC Says Gutting ISP Oversight Was Great For Broadband (vice.com)
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with that claim: the FCC's latest report only includes data up to June 2018, the same month net neutrality was formally repealed.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.
Lying has become a standard policy in the U.S. government.
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.
Like: "FCC Falsely Says Gutting ISP Oversight Was Great For Broadband"
AC comments get piped to
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.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...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.
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.)
One would not expect to see ANY significant changes one way or the other. While the FCC has punted on NN, it is still a public policy issue, is showing up in state legislation, and is working its way through various courts. Big ISPs are not going to make major changes, either in terms of building capacity or changing filtering policies until they have an idea of what the next decade or so is going to look like.
it's still tied up in courts. That said, my ISP didn't used to have bandwidth caps and they added them right after Trump got elected. That is not a coincidence.
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 Republican. Each time the cycle repeats a little ground is lost, so that real wages are down 20%.
I understand folks don't like partisan politics, but the reality is that if you're somebody who works for a living (as opposed to somebody who either inherited money or just gets it from the stuff they own via rent seeking) then the GOP is not your friend. Enough folks have realized this that a Democratic Socialist has a real shot at the presidency.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
-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.
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.
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!
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?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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.
You must be awfully butt-mad to write all those words nobody will read.
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 the gallows.)
Put your head in the noose, and if unlike Trump you can think of anything you might require praying to absolve, now's the time. The lake of fire awaits, traitor.
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 institution's courtyard.
Great for broadband if you're an ISP . . . . .
. . . . not so much if you're a consumer.
Guess whose side the FCC is on ?
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?
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.
> 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 legislation mandates specific speech, gender pronouns selected by the listener, and that it treats the wrong pronoun use itself as hate speech. That is the ideal of some LGBTQ organizations, where incorrect pronoun use is treated as assault.
It's come up professionally for me. I referred to an old colleague as "him" from before his gender change, when discussing some workplace changes we made to accommodate "her" while she was in transition. I was able to introduce the youngster to the transgender woman and get _her_ opinion, and she was comfortable with my pronoun use. But a less certain professional without decades of experience might have been alarmed and cowed by the youngster's strident demands.
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 it would be highly counterproductive in achieving whatever legislative goals they had. The truth is they merely wish to profit while stoking fear which creates a feedback loop for viewership which explains their record of high ratings.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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 perspectives of either side don't need to watch the MSM to receive confirmation bias, because those concepts have already been internalized.
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 making shit up, nice work!
-knewter
Yet I don't see you offering any of the blame to McConnell which means you have no interest in being honest, just in trying to tie Pai's decisions to Obama which is entirely indigenous. You already know this which is why everyone can safely disregard your statement as propaganda.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
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 their fearmongering and demagoguery has gotten them a narcissistic simpleton who is puppet for foreign nation.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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".
That's not how plebs think. They don't have well reasoned beliefs and ideals and such (on either side,) they are born into a culture and they perpetuate that culture. They can't be convinced to do the right thing (on either side,) so the best way to manipulate is to pigeon-hole them into sets of conflicting superficial beliefs over non-issues. This ensures neither side is focused on a thing that matters to change anything in their interest or otherwise.
... 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.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So you're an expert in propaganda...arguing that the MSM is truth..shocking.
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/...
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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.