Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government Technology

Study Proves the FCC's Core Justification For Killing Net Neutrality Was False (vice.com) 95

Posted by BeauHD from the not-true dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A new study has found the FCC's primary justification for repealing net neutrality was indisputably false. For years, big ISPs and Trump FCC boss Ajit Pai have told anyone who'd listen that the FCC's net neutrality rules, passed in 2015 and repealed last year in a flurry of controversy and alleged fraud, dramatically stifled broadband investment across the United States. Repeal the rules, Pai declared, and U.S. broadband investment would explode. But a new study from George Washington University indicates that Pai's claims were patently false. The study took a closer look at the earnings reports and SEC filings of 8,577 unique companies from Q1 2009 through Q3 2018 to conclude that the passage and repeal of the rules had no meaningful impact on broadband investment. Several hundred of these were telecom companies.

"The results of the paper are clear and should be both unsurprising and uncontroversial," The researchers said. "The key finding is there were no impacts on telecommunication industry investment from the net neutrality policy changes. Neither the 2010 or 2015 U.S. net neutrality rule changes had any causal impact on telecommunications investment." While the study is the biggest yet to do so, it's not the first to reach this conclusion. "This paper once again validates what the FCC found in 2015 and what net neutrality advocates have said for years -- that neither the net neutrality rules nor Title II classification had any impact on ISP investment," Gigi Sohn, a former FCC lawyer who helped craft the FCC's 2015 rules, said.

"Not surprisingly, the ISPs and their friends at the FCC and the Hill keep saying the opposite, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary," she added. "Hopefully this comprehensive study, which studies ISP investment over nearly a decade, will put this matter to rest."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Proves the FCC's Core Justification For Killing Net Neutrality Was False More

Study Proves the FCC's Core Justification For Killing Net Neutrality Was False

Comments Filter:

  • Can anyone benefit any real benefit _from_ net neutrality rules? Seemed it was all based on what they _might_ do. Ask someone how their life changed before and after NN and they'll look at you thoughtfully and then ask what the fuck you're talking about.

    • I can (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @06:19PM (#59244862)
      shortly after it became clear that NN was going away my ISP instituted data caps. I now pay an extra $30/mo to avoid those, and my end up paying $100/mo more within a few years.

      Also most of the protections from NN are still in effect. This is similar to how Trump lifted auto emissions and fuel economy regulations but the car companies didn't immediately act. Ending NN opens up the doors to all kinds of evil. Companies are smart enough not to do it until they're sure they can get away with it.

      See, large corporations think long term. Unfortunately individuals do not.

      • shortly after it became clear that NN was going away my ISP instituted data caps. I now pay an extra $30/mo to avoid those, and my end up paying $100/mo more within a few years. Also most of the protections from NN are still in effect. This is similar to how Trump lifted auto emissions and fuel economy regulations but the car companies didn't immediately act. Ending NN opens up the doors to all kinds of evil. Companies are smart enough not to do it until they're sure they can get away with it. See, large corporations think long term. Unfortunately individuals do not.

        How would net neutrality have changed your data caps?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

        I now pay an extra $30/mo to avoid those, and my end up paying $100/mo more within a few years.

        Change ISP. Oh wait, you probably can't. Don't you love the "free market"?

      • "shortly after it became clear that NN was going away my ISP instituted data caps. I now pay an extra $30/mo to avoid those,"

        Sounds good to me. That means you're probably streaming video if you need to avoid the data caps, which means you're paying for your extra usage. I _don't_ stream video, I pay a cable TV bill for that, and am quite happy to otherwise get my entertainment in the theater or via a DVD in an optical drive. And either way, I'm NOT paying for your outsized net usage while you're streami

    • Re:And vice-versa... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @06:20PM (#59244866)

      Can anyone benefit any real benefit _from_ net neutrality rules?

      Well, if I go to certain very poor-quality and content-lacking web site sponsored by my wireless carrier, it doesn't count against my data cap. If I go to high-quality sites that do a very good job serving similar content, it does count against my data cap.

      Would be nice if the shitty site actually had to compete on merit instead of getting an artificial boost from the ISP.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        But that's always been the case. Obama's "net neutrality" rules didn't prevent that, TMobile enacted such scheme the day the act was signed while Verizon and co upped their prices under the guise of "increased regulation". After NN supposedly ended I filed a complaint I was still getting charged the fee they tacked on for NN reasons and got refunded.

        • That's not an accurate description of the T-Mobile plan. They offered no cap on ALL providers of certain types of data (streaming audio and video) so long as the providers agree to bandwidth limits. (Audio is limited to 320Kbps and video is limited to 480p resolution.) T-Mobile itself doesn't provide any content of that type other than promotional video for their own services on their web site. They get some network management benefits; they can shed streaming first if the network gets congested, and custom

      • Not sure of point... instead of one site counting against your cap, you want both sites to count against your cap? Guh?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jon3k ( 691256 )
          I want everything treated the same, with no prioritization given to people who can pay a carrier more. That's the entire premise of net neutrality. Otherwise we give companies like Facebook and Google an advantage over smaller companies to compete fairly.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Strill ( 6019874 )

          Of course. I don't want corrupt shitty sites being propped up by bribes to ISP monopolies.

      • Would be nice if the shitty site actually had to compete on merit instead of getting an artificial boost from the ISP.

        So instead of getting something "for free" that you don't want to use, you'd rather force everyone to pay for everything? That's the result of removing the zero rating for sites -- you'd have to use your data to go there, too. You'd save nothing by removing zero rating, and it would cost other people.

        Why are you concerned about the quality of sites you aren't going to use?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Strill ( 6019874 )

          You think it's ok for some sites to bribe ISPs into getting better service? What happens when the "standard internet" becomes crap, and the "premium internet" is the only place you can get decent quality speeds? Say goodbye to any chance at competition.

          This is like a store bribing the city council into doing preferential road construction for your business and not your competitors.

          • You think it's ok for some sites to bribe ISPs into getting better service?

            Huh? I thought you were talking about zero rating, not fast lanes. Pick one, please.

            This is like a store bribing the city council into doing preferential road construction for your business and not your competitors.

            No, this is like a store providing free parking in the local parking garage for their customers while customers of other businesses have to pay. The parking spaces are the same, there aren't any more of them for one company vs. another, it's just one company is giving you something for free. You want everyone to have to pay to park because you don't want to do business with the company that comps it, which is pretty selfish.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Strill ( 6019874 )

              >Huh? I thought you were talking about zero rating, not fast lanes. Pick one, please.

              It's the same result. If you go to the site that counts against your data cap, you get throttled.

              >No, this is like a store providing free parking in the local parking garage for their customers while customers of other businesses have to pay. The parking spaces are the same, there aren't any more of them for one company vs. another, it's just one company is giving you something for free. You want everyone to have to p

              • It's the same result.

                no, it is not.

                If you go to the site that counts against your data cap, you get throttled.

                Only if you exceed your data cap, which is not a fast-lane issue, it is exceeding your data cap issue.

                No, because in your example it's the store that's providing free parking.

                And in the zero rating example it is the ISP that is providing the zero rating.

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by Strill ( 6019874 )

                  The ISP is not analogous to a store. If I don't like a store, I can shop at hundreds of other stores. If you don't like your ISP, and there's no others in your area with the speeds you need, you're screwed. Barriers to entry in internet service are very high due to infrastructure costs, which means ISP service is not a free market. Instead, ISPs form natural monopolies. That's why Comcast is the country's number 1 most hated company - they have a monopoly in many areas, and people have no choice but to pur

                  • Yes

                  • The ISP is not analogous to a store.

                    In the case of the analogy between ISP/zero rating and store/free parking, it certainly is.

                    If I don't like a store, I can shop at hundreds of other stores.

                    You do realize that "analogy" doesn't mean "exactly the same thing", don't you? In the analogy, the ISP is giving you something for free just like the store is giving you something for free. You want everyone to have to pay for both. Why would you want to go to a different store, or a different ISP, just because they were giving something to others for free that you weren't interested in having anyway? I see that as i

        • So instead of getting something "for free" that you don't want to use, you'd rather force everyone to pay for everything?

          No, I'd rather the ISP not try to monetize me via a "subscription fee" to a terrible product, who's only good feature is the ISP doesn't charge for data for it....because the ISP is providing that site, and knows that they can't possibly compete in a fair market.

          So they want to create an artificial barrier to the better products, in the hopes that they'd extract some additional money from everyone. The ones who think the shitty service is "good enough" because no cap, and the people who want the quality se

          • No, I'd rather the ISP not try to monetize me via a "subscription fee" to a terrible product, who's only good feature is the ISP doesn't charge for data for it....

            How is an ISP that zero rates a site charging you a "subscription fee" to use it?

            If the only good feature of a site is that it is zero rated, then don't use that site. Who is forcing you to use it? Why should you force the ISP to charge for the data to it just because you don't like the site?

            So they want to create an artificial barrier to the better products,

            ISPs have no reason to create an artificial barrier to "the better product". In fact, since they are charging you against your data cap for that product, they make more money if you use it. They love the "better prod

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Strill ( 6019874 )

      It's not about what they *might* do, it's what they *are* doing. Comcast held its customers hostage in order to racketeer against Netflix. They said that if Netflix didn't pay for Comcast's infrastructure, Comcast would throttle its own customers who tried to access Netflix, until Netflix caved and paid them. All the major ISPs are already all throttling streaming and bittorrent downloads. Furthermore, they've stated in congress that they would give preferential treatment to some websites over others, if

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
        And here I was thinking that Comcast customers paid for Comcast's infrastructure. Silly me. Of course big companies are entitled to bill at both ends right? Just like cable TV channels that charge a monthly fee AND have advertisements too. Screw the customer for every penny you can because every year we have to make more billions so the CEO can cash out his options at a nice profit.

        • And here I was thinking that Comcast customers paid for Comcast's infrastructure. Silly me.

          Yes, they and all the other taxpayers.

    • It's about acting before it happens because once it happens, (and it would happen swiftly, remember how quickly unlimited mobile plans dried up?), and the hoards of sheeple get "used to it", you'll never create the momentum needed to restore it. Does someone born in slavery have very high expectations? This is all a game of interests. ISPs carefully balance theirs; they want to dominate the market in the cheapest way, but also not piss off their users. When those interests are by nature set against each ot
    • Net neutrality is a political band-aid which doesn't solve the real problem. The real problem is the cable Internet monopolies granted by the local municipal governments (usually city, sometimes county). If there were no monopoly and you had competition, any ISP deliberately throttling Netflix as a negotiating tactic would be shooting themselves.in the foot. Their customers would simply cancel service and switch to an ISP which doesn't throttle Netflix. The only reason the ISP can attempt extortion agai

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jonwil ( 467024 )

        People who live in cities with local-government-granted monopolies like Comcast should go ask their elected officials why said officials continue to grant these monopolies. See what they say.

        Thankfully I live in a country where I actually have a choice of ISPs and can choose an ISP that isn't crap.

      • The catch is that most areas will never have a large number of internet providers because the capital cost of building the infrastructure is high. Only urban areas and denser suburbs can support more than one high quality wired internet company. Wireless infrastructure is cheaper, but there are limits to how much data it can handle unless you build so many cells that the infrastructure cost approaches that of wired. Some people live in places where the number of broadband suppliers that the market will supp

  • No change until GOP is voted out (Score:4, Insightful)

    by al0ha ( 1262684 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @05:40PM (#59244698) Journal
    No change until GOP is voted out of Senate and the presidency. Bottom line...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fustakrakich ( 1673220 )

      DNC too! [gq.com] Vote them all out! Or you're just farting into the wind

      • The Democrats have Justice Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @06:22PM (#59244876)
        and Bernie Sanders. An entire wing of the party that refuses corporate PAC money and is setting the agenda (Medicare for All, tuition free college, ending the wars, Green New Deal and yes, Net Neutrality).

        If there's a GOP equivalent I'm open to hear it. I'd love for the GOP to get on the "No corporate cash" bandwagon. But as far as I know there is no such animal.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by guruevi ( 827432 )

          I'm not so sure they refuse PAC money, it just gets funneled somewhere else before going to the PAC. The WSJ and many others did a story months ago about Bernie accepting money from at least 3 PAC that keep their donors a secret and most of his money comes form said PAC.

          Warren has a similar corruption problem with her daughter's organization supposedly endorsing her without membership approval whereas prior membership votes went all in for Bernie, the board decided to cancel publishing the results and overr

        • Please stop. They work together as a team. The "opposition" you see is pure show. War and austerity is still the common goal.

          Nothing will change until we vote them ALL out.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

            Nothing will change until we vote them ALL out.

            Never going to happen. If one considers high intelligence to be a rare commodity and not a common one, then it follows that there are fewer intelligent people than stupid people. This means that in democracy, where everyone's vote counts exactly the same - the stupid people always win the election by outvoting the smart people. Democracy is biased towards stupid. Which is why people always end up being screwed by their government no matter how well designed it may have started out as. The candidate who can

            • Never going to happen.

              I don't really expect it to. But I do know who is responsible. That's too damn easy to see.

              The real story is the denial and the backlash against those who hold up a mirror.

              So, as the ancient prediction goes, democracy invariably ends up in tyranny. This is humans on autopilot.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ABEND ( 15913 )

              Nothing will change until we vote them ALL out.

              Never going to happen. If one considers high intelligence to be a rare commodity and not a common one, then it follows that there are fewer intelligent people than stupid people. This means that in democracy, where everyone's vote counts exactly the same - the stupid people always win the election by outvoting the smart people. Democracy is biased towards stupid. Which is why people always end up being screwed by their government no matter how well designed it may have started out as. The candidate who can successfully appeal to emotion and manipulate the dumb masses with well sounding but fake promises will always triumph over the rational, reasonable candidate.

              That is true when "democracy" becomes "mob rule." Since, in the U.S., there are few impediments to voting, we've got a mob rule problem and the mob is ruled by inflammatory rhetoric from "mainstream" media and "social" media. That is, the mob is ruled by whomever is producing the inflammatory content that is being propagated in the various forms of media.

    • So let's say your wish comes true. The Democrats hold the House and win control of the Senate and Presidency. Net neutrality is reinstated (though you have to ask yourself why they didn't do this when they held all three of these during Obama's first term). Cable companies can no longer extort websites for preferential bandwidth. Victory?

      What about the out of control cable TV/Internet fees [money.com]? What about being unable to opt out of dozens of sports channels you'll never watch which constitute half the e
      • Verizon and Comcast both offer basic cable TV packages that don't include any sports channels. Typically what you get is local broadcasts, a few news channels, a small entertainment selection, and all the telemarketing and religion you can stand. (Those last two categories PAY the cable company to carry them so they come with every package.) The catch is that there is a lack of packages that include everything BUT sports; if you want all the other entertainment options you're usually stuck with paying for E

  • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Freedom does not require justification. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @05:50PM (#59244732)
      I'd argue that that bigger impediment to broadband development is the exclusive franchise rights that so many municipalities will grant to companies. Thankfully most cities have wised up and realized that companies which are granted a legal monopoly have fuck all reason to provide a good service and have stopped standing in the way of competition. Once you've got a choice of providers, who would honestly want to buy internet from a company that won't give you access to the websites that you want or goes out of their way to throttle them?

      • I'd argue that that bigger impediment to broadband development is the exclusive franchise rights that so many municipalities will grant to companies

        Good news! They don't exist.

        Cable TV monopolies were handed out in the 1970s and 1980s. These were not Internet monopolies. Which is why the phone company was selling you DSL in the 1990s while the cable company was trying to sell you cable modems.

        Also, all the monopolies expired by the 2000's.

        What we have now is the natural monopoly from being the incumbent, so we don't actually have real competition in the vast majority of the US.

        • What we have now is the natural monopoly from being the incumbent,

          We have a natural monopoly for cable-delivered internet services. There is also a natural monopoly for wireline (DSL). There are no monopolies for wireless Internet, and there has NEVER been a monopoly for ISP services in general. Summing all of that up, there is no natural monopoly for any ISP, since internet service is not limited to one medium.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            That just leaves collusion (possibly tacit) to explain the dearth of choices most Americans have.

          • Aside from the cost of doing it, there is another barrier to entry for wireless internet: locations to put the cells. Space on rooftops and cell towers is a limited resource. Space on telephone poles is usually controlled by the incumbent telephone company. Lining up the leases is a major challenge. (Voice of experience; I worked for an early wireless internet startup.)

            Regulatory approval is also a barrier. If the prospective carrier wants to use licensed radio spectrum it has to be bought in a spectrum auc

            • Aside from the cost of doing it, there is another barrier to entry for wireless internet: locations to put the cells.

              "Wireless" is not synonymous with "cellular". You don't need "cells" to have wireless internet.

              Regulatory approval is also a barrier. If the prospective carrier wants to use licensed radio spectrum it has to be bought in a spectrum auction

              No, all you need to do is get the license. Again, you're confusing cellular and PCS services with wireless internet.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          Re 'What we have now is the natural monopoly from being the incumbent, so we don't actually have real competition in the vast majority of the US."
          That new federal laws further protected under net neutrality.
          A telco had to meet and show it was ready for "net neutrality"?
          The incumbent telco was using federal rules to keep out new competition and community broadband by saying that a new service would not be "net neutrality" ready. That only the exiting service could meet net neutrality rules and that shoul
          • The point of net neutrality is not to increase competition among ISPs. If correctly implemented it has no effect there, one way or the other. It is designed to increase competition among online companies by preventing ISPs from using their monopoly power over local service to stifle competition among content providers.

          • Net neutrality has nothing to do with breaking or reinforcing ISP monopolies.

            Net neutrality meant the ISP couldn't "pick favorites" when transmitting packets. All packets of the same type had to be treated the same way.

        • Cable TV monopolies were handed out in the 1970s and 1980s. These were not Internet monopolies.

          Yes they are Internet monopolies. The path a cable takes underground or strung up on telephone poles is called an easement [nolo.com]. Because these lines must continue uninterrupted, by necessity they must cross private property at certain points. And an easement is how the government grants a third party (the cable company, the telephone company, the power company, the water company, etc) the right to string cable or p

          • Don't forget that FIOS got in because it is offered by telephone companies that already have easements. Since they also carry telephone service on the fiber, they are covered by the existing agreements that the telcos have had for over 100 years.

          • So unless the local government grants another company the right to lay down new cable to carry Internet traffic (e.g. FIOS), the cable company with a monopoly on cable TV service also has a monopoly on cable Internet service.

            Easements are not nearly as restricted as you are attempting to claim. They just require a permit, and it's not that hard to get one.

            For example, there's this company named "Google" that just ran fiber through the easement in the front of my house. If your claims about easements creating a monopoly were true, that couldn't have happened. But I've got the holes in my lawn to prove it did.

            When the local governments granted those cable TV monopolies, that was a monopoly for laying cable through those easement to transmit cable TV.

            No. Access to the easement is independent of the monopoly that was granted. It's literally a different agreement. One

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Strill ( 6019874 )

      Landline internet is a monopoly. In 20 states, it is literally illegal to compete with existing internet companies by laying new landlines. That's on top of the fact that the internet is not a free market, because of the huge barriers to entry in terms of infrastructure required. Internet service is a natural monopoly, just like water, electricity, and phone service, and should be treated as a common carrier, or alternatively, local governments should provide the framework for a free market by laying empty

      • Landline internet is a monopoly. In 20 states, it is literally illegal to compete with existing internet companies by laying new landlines.

        [Citation Required]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Khyber ( 864651 )

          With your UID you should be old enough to have been paying attention for the past decade, especially here on slashdot where we keep having stories (and dupes) about it every other fucking month.

          There are 20 states which have regulations which make it extremely difficult or impossible for municipal broadband to happen:

          Alabama: Municipal communications services must be self-sustaining, "thus impairing bundling and other common industry marketing practices." Municipalities cannot use "local taxes or other fund

          • You claimed: "Landline internet is a monopoly. In 20 states, it is literally illegal to compete with existing internet companies by laying new landlines." You were challenged to provide citations.

            Instead, you summarized a group of various laws that deal with municipal broadband. Nothing that prohibits private competition. And it appears you are mixing the real meaning of "landline" and "cable" or "fiber".

            • He's also mixing the real meaning of "illegal" vs "difficult".

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Khyber ( 864651 )

                If you break the regulation, you've VIOLATED A LAW, moron. Regulations and court cases have the same full fucking force as law.

                If it weren't illegal, they couldn't fine you or take you to court over it. These regulations de-facto make competitive behaviors from the communities illegal, to the point of making it almost impossible for states or municipalities to do their own thing.

                Do you even understand this, or did you fail that basic English lesson in 7th grade?

                • That's a false dichotomy; the actual reason is simply that I'm not retarded.

                  None of those regulations make it "literally illegal to compete"; they just make it more difficult. Just like driver licencing regulations don't make it "literally illegal to drive"; they just make it more difficult. If someone breaks the regulations, then yes, they would be breaking the law, but if they compete or drive while following the regulations then they are not, in fact, breaking the law.

                  I know, this is hard for you, but

                  • None of those regulations make it "literally illegal to compete"; they just make it more difficult.

                    And just more difficult for MUNICIPAL broadband services to be created. Private companies are not limited by these laws. It is not "literally illegal to compete", it is literally NOT illegal to compete.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Khyber ( 864651 )

              "You claimed:"

              No, I did fucking not, someone else did. Go re-read the whole goddamned thread, moron.

              "And it appears you are mixing the real meaning of "landline" and "cable" or "fiber". "

              They are ALL landline services as they are NOT WIRELESS. Holy fuck do you even read FCC regulations and classifications?

              You should just off yourself already. You're too senile to be in this conversation.

          • Your proof:

            There are 20 states which have regulations which make it extremely difficult or impossible for municipal broadband to happen:

            Your claim:

            Landline internet is a monopoly. In 20 states, it is literally illegal to compete with existing internet companies by laying new landlines.

            Your proof does not back up your claim. Those laws only ban municipal broadband not broadband from another commercial provider.

            You should have figured this out when another commercial provider known as "Google" started laying new "landlines" in states on your list.

        • I assume he is being very specific in using the term "landline" to refer to telco provided service. Yes, landline telephone companies do have monopolies in many places. Unfortunately for the internet competition argument, landline telephone is not the only way to get internet service, and thus the telco monopoly does not create an ISP monopoly.
    • The old regulation was on dial up phone lines. Phone companies couldn't slow down the data rate of your landlines, ISPs were free to compete. Eventually the mom and pop ISPs died at the hands of anticompetitive mega corporations, telecom and cable companies, which are state sanctioned monopolies.
      • The mom and pop ISPs also died because of the progress of technology. 56K dialup simply isn't a useful connection in the internet as it exists in 2019. Anything faster, even DSL, required infrastructure that was beyond the resources of those ISPs.

    • Detailed history of abuse (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Here is a list [freepress.net] of a dozen cases where ISPs have been caught engaging in anti-competitive and anti-consumer behaviour that was subsequently forbidden by net neutrality regulations.

      If you're happy for them to start abusing you again, sure, why not give them the power to decide what's best for you. There's a fine balance between private and corporate interests, and deregulation is a great way to sacrifice your own benefits and freedoms for their bottom line.

  • They misinterpreted Pai's investment claim (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @05:43PM (#59244714)
    By "stifling broadband investment" Pai meant investment in a new addition he wants to build onto his house, funded by the cushy, seven-figure industry job that surely awaits him when he leaves the FCC.
    • Hope are that his huge Reeses coffee cup will crush his empty head.

      As a truly failed head of a public service, he has fully failed the public interest.
      Any person that serves non-human interest, like broadband entities, above the real peoples of this land, deserves the worst that can happen.


      Period.

      Dear Ajit: You are a true idiot and Trump-dick-sucker.

  • "Hopefully this comprehensive study, which studies ISP investment over nearly a decade, will put this matter to rest."

    On the contrary! Obviously we need another study. And if that doesn't produce the results we want, we will need another study!

    The beatings will continue until bla bla bla bla...

  • Business investment is mostly determined by the business fundamental--whether I can make a decent profit. If no, then the project is dead. If yes, then there is a good chance I will do it regardless of the regulations. However, if the regulations drastically affect cost, then I might reconsider.
  • Meanwhile, years of progress have been lost and even if the corruption were driven out of the US Federal government's FCC tomorrow, it will take many more years to recover from the damage done. Everyone but the predatory industries lose. And this result we face is unthinkable, intolerable, unacceptable. And nothing sufficient will be done to punish those responsible and inspire fear in those who would do it again.
  • But what do we do to restore Net Neutrality?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Why was NN instituted? Was there a sinister plot that was going to line the pockets of some elite? Or did it simply ensure an equal playing field?

    Why was NN repealed? Who hated the fact that everyone was guaranteed equal service both as content providers and consumers? Who was a former executive at a major U.S. mobile phone company? Who mishandled/ignored the required public feedback requirement of the FCC? Who paid for the repeal?

    If no one paid, then why did it happen?

  • Can Congress reverse the FCC decision on the basis it was bullshit?

  • We are all of are thinking it.

    NO SHIT!!!!

  • Every argument the anti-consumer FCC has made has been full if malarkey.

    Like when they tried to skew the numbers on urban rollout and de-regulating fee reporting laws. They stated it was so ISPs could "increasing investments on expanding infrastructure" and not have to go through so much red tape in "charging customers". They tried to show false numbers to corroborate the "benefits" of those decisions.

    The end result? The ISPs simply pocketed the money.

    This is what I don't understand about conserva

Slashdot Top Deals

With your bare hands?!?

Close