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with that claim: the FCC's latest report only includes data up to June 2018, the same month net neutrality was formally repealed.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.
...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.
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!
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 than any policy is suppression of free discussion -- then it's guaranteed you'll end up in a hole. My rant is against them.
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.
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.
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?
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.