FCC Report Falsely Claims Killing Net Neutrality Already Helping Broadband Competition
from the rose-colored-glasses dept
For years the FCC has been caught in a vicious cycle. Under the Communications Act, the FCC is required to issue annual reports on the state of U.S. broadband and competition, taking action if services aren't being deployed in a "reasonable and timely" basis. When under the grip of regulatory capture and revolving door regulators, these reports tends to be artificially rosy, downplaying or ignoring the lack of competition that should be obvious to anybody familiar with Comcast. These folks' denial of the sector's competition shortcomings often teeters toward the comical and is usually hard to miss.
When the agency has more independently-minded leadership (which admittedly doesn't happen often), the report tends to accurately show how the majority of consumers lack real options and quality broadband. That was the case under former FCC boss Tom Wheeler, whose agency not only raised the definition of broadband to 25 Mbps (which greatly angered the industry), but actually went out of its way to highlight the fact that two-thirds of American homes lack access to FCC-defined speeds of 25 Mbps from more than one ISP (aka a monopoly).
Unsurprisingly, the Trump FCC is now taking things back in the rose-colored glasses direction. The agency's latest Broadband Deployment Report (pdf) proudly declares that United States broadband is now, quite magically, being deployed in a "reasonable and timely basis." An accompanying press release (pdf) similarly tries to claim that things are only getting better, thanks in large part to Ajit Pai's historically-unpopular attack on net neutrality:
"The progress of broadband deployment slowed dramatically in the wake of the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Title II Order that regulated broadband Internet access service as a utility, according to the agency’s 2018 Broadband Deployment Report. However, steps taken last year have restored progress by removing barriers to infrastructure investment, promoting competition, and restoring the longstanding bipartisan light-touch regulatory framework for broadband that had been reversed by the Title II Order, the report says."
You may be surprised to learn that nothing in the Trump FCC's statement here is actually true. SEC filings, earnings reports, and numerous CEO statements easily disprove the claim that the FCC's 2015 rules hurt sector investment. Ajit Pai's FCC has repeatedly and comically claimed the contrary in the apparent belief that repetition forges reality (or at the very least fools the gullible). The only "evidence" the FCC provides to support its claim that killing net neutrality spurred investment is contained in these two sentences:
"For instance, several companies, including AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, and Alaska Communications either commenced or announced new deployments in 2017," the report concludes. "These new deployments are initial indicators that deployment is likely to accelerate again in part due to our recent efforts."
But industry watchers were quick to note that none of these deployments were actually new. In fact, all of them actually began under the leadership of former FCC boss Tom Wheeler, with several of them simply attached to merger conditions or requirements placed on subsidies. Like AT&T's spike in deployment, which was exclusively thanks to merger conditions affixed to its DirecTV acquisition:
"In August 2015, the Wheeler-led FCC awarded AT&T with $428 million in annual funding to bring 10Mbps Internet service to parts of rural America. AT&T was required to deploy broadband to 1.1 million rural homes and businesses over six years to meet its Connect America Fund commitment, and it had to complete the first 40 percent of those deployments by the end of 2017. Thus, the AT&T announcement in January 2018 was simply the fulfillment of a broadband deployment program set in course by the Wheeler FCC."
What's more, the data collected by the FCC is only accurate up until December 2016, when Ajit Pai didn't even take office until the following year. Needless to say, Pai's fellow Commissioners weren't particularly impressed by his rose-colored glasses in their statements of dissent (pdf):
"Critical progress reports should not rely on the 'hypothetical' when it comes to reaching a conclusion," Clyburn said. "Indeed, the deployments the majority loudly touts pale greatly in comparison to the deployments that occurred in the year after the adoption of the 2015 Open Internet Order. But if you are desperate to justify flawed policy, I think the straw-grasping conclusions contained in this report is for you."
Again, none of this is new, and we allow this dysfunction to perpetuate. For decades large ISPs have employed economists to massage data until it helps revolving door regulators deny the obvious: that limited competition results in high prices, slow speeds, and some of the worst customer service in any industry in America. Those revolving door regulators also cherry pick and manipulate data to this same effect, and routinely try and weaken the definition of broadband (by including abysmal satellite service or more expensive and capped wireless) to help deny the obvious.
After all, were FCC data to clearly illustrate how badly American broadband consumers are being screwed by regional monopolies, pay-to-play legislators, and revolving door regulators, somebody might just be forced into actually doing something about it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, exaggeration, fcc, investment, net neutrality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
Yeah, "were" here means IF.
Actually, services are okay and affordable for most everyone. English serfs might want to know that the average mid-size state I live in is about two-thirds size of UK in Europe. It's over two hundred miles to the state capitol. Big country. When you make an overall average, it looks a bit low, sure.
I bet Australia doesn't have much broadband in the Outback, though.
Anyhoo, minion, STATE some actual horrors, don't just say there are some, or this is just FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You'll just have to wait your turn. Unless you're a pirate, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
> So what?
SO, an average of area versus "coverage" will be low, which is really all that minion complains about here, and makes America look "bad' in comparison to dense population of serfs in England. Or is math too hard for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
Why isn't this OFF-TOPIC sheer vulgarism hidden?
I like this constant ongoing connecting me to "MyNameHere" and "Hamilton", but you might recall I advise reasonable persons to FLEE this cesspit, and apparently they've done so.
I never bother to make allies here because A) don't need them when have Truth on my side, and B) ALL reasonable persons WILL soon give up.
It's best to just state what believe, then let the barking rats make comments like that which expose their true level, not try to engage them, that's just waste of time, as indeed, I is doing rat now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
He didn't post like a ranting mental patient? He's not trying to spam the same irrelevant opinion piece 20 times then shouting at the windmills when his triggers the spam filter? He actually bothered, to explain his supposed point, as dumb and misleading as it is?
Your posting style is what gets you blocked, plus the fact that you usually format your posts in a way that shouts "remember this asshole, just block him as you know from experience he has nothing of value to add".
"constant ongoing connecting me to "MyNameHere" and "Hamilton""
You refuse to identify yourself, and it's nicer to assume that we have one obsessed tosspot derailing things here than a group of you taking shifts.
Nobody connected you to those losers in this thread by the way, so it's telling that the mention on one of them before you came in has triggered you so much into defending yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
They get mad when you confuse them with each other.
They get mad when you correctly identify them. ("Hey, aren't you that same guy who said...")
They sure are a fragile bunch, aren't they?
Okay, so, Blue says he's not MyNameHere or Hamilton. And I'm pretty sure he's not Chip. (Real Chip or Satirical Chip.) But SovCit is him, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
But SovCit is him, right?
Yup, same tell on both, so while it's not 100% guaranteed, it's almost certainly the same individual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
Does it matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
I don't care who you think I am, just wanting to see if they get it right. If they do I will not hide it.
I never intentionally lie, ever. Even as an AC I refuse to lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
Well, that depends, are you the one who posted the comment that PaulT responded to? Because in that case I'd be hard pressed to use polite words in describing that person, given their recent actions in various comment sections. Alternatively, if the answer to the above is 'no', then based upon comments you've made below I've got another guess, and while it's better, it's hardly flattering.
If a person has a particular tell(and the first possibility has several), then seeing those is plenty to identify them even if a name is never mentioned(though some people do seem to have settled on one, and I suspect they're correct based upon a few comments made by the individual in question.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
No I am not the one PaulT responded to above if I am looking at the post you are implying.
I am generally hated around here by the people that preach no hate. I am independent but accused of being an R most of the time.
I call myself the "anti-FCC nutter".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
In that case yeah, you would be the second one I was thinking of('The Chosen One' if you were curious, and no, it's not meant to be flattering).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
So is Obama, but it's okay if he says it right?
Just not okay when I say it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
So is Obama, but it's okay if he says it right?
Absolutely.
Just not okay when I say it!
Now you got it.
Context is everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
Obama's and my quotes about people getting the politicians or governments they deserve are in the exact same context. Meaning, if you don't like the bullshit you are dealing with right now then you need to change the people you elect into power. Pretty simple to understand.
AC was either, erroneously mistaking that and meant source, or he is lying an implying that my context is different from Obama's context in some but but but but but... stupidity, in which case proves my point. He only accepts that saying based on the source not really the context.
You might not be intelligent enough to work out things like this, but I helped you out!
You are welcome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
Which tell? The novels in the subject line?
It can't be the abuse of exclamation points and quotation marks. They all do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
That is one of them, yes. Funnily enough it seems to be their sole redeeming quality, that they make it so immediately obvious who they are so you don't have to waste time reading their latest ranting unless you feel like killing off some brain cells and/or poking at them for entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
Main problem is, people keep responding to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
blue is SovCit, though. He's the brain-dead assclown who keeps going on about this mysterious "common law" that criminalizes citizens but lets corporations do whatever. blue is the biggest corporate advocate I've seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
but you might recall I advise reasonable persons to FLEE this cesspit, and apparently they've done so.
Is your advice so shitty that you refuse to take it yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IF Americans were "being screwed", you might have a point.
You are incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
damn
Turn about is fair play I always say. You lie, they lie, everybody is a liar looking to get the edge on each other.
well you know how it goes, repeat a lie often enough people start believing it.
*cackling*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: damn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: damn
Tell me, do you believe that people that elect a terrible politician are not responsible for them?
From my perspective the D's and R's definitely old the other group accountable, just just fail to hold themselves accountable. All I am saying is that I see a lot of people bitching about the other side doing, what they approve of their side doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: damn
All I am saying is that I see a lot of people bitching about the other side doing, what they approve of their side doing.
[Citation needed](also what were you saying below about putting words in people's mouths and erecting strawmen?).
No really, feel free to point to examples where people were perfectly fine with one party screwing over the public and only objected when the other party started doing it, despite the fact that the actions and effects were the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: damn
Ah, the old "I see a lot of [x]; so much that I can't produce a single example."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
It takes a particularly off sort of mindset to celebrate people screwing you over simply because someone else is also being screwed, but if that's what it takes for you to get your entertainment, I guess have at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
Additionally, I don't get off on idiots being tortured as you put it. But I do laugh at them when they get what they give! Don't you find Irony humorous as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
Same difference, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
The pleasure you receive from the pain of others is still pleasure, regardless of whether it is emotional or sexual. Like I said: same difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
Do you idiots not realize that words have a meaning and that if you learn what they mean you will stop arguing over shit where an argument never existed until you manufactured it?
A laugh is not always about "pleasure". Try looking it up in a dictionary. It can also serve a form of derision which would certainly be more appropriate in this situation.
I do not look down up you, but the number of times I have to correct you idiots I am see why you think I do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
It really does not take any significant intelligence to see how stupid you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
AC2: "I think you are over estimating yourself"
Did AC1 over estimate how derisively the laughter was or whether it is the best example they have seen - this is so confusing - Hahahahaha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given the context of your statement, it sure as shit ain’t about pain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
Wow Chip that’s some textbook cognitive dissonance you’ve got there. Please go on and tell us what only you could possibly be smart enough to know. That way we can add classic narcissism to your very stupid and boring psychological profile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
But that's the 'fun' part, if you happen to live in the same country as them you're in the same boat they are, such that what causes them to suffer also has good odds to hit you to.
It's like laughing at someone for being in a leaking lifeboat in the middle of the ocean while you're in the boat with them. The very thing you're laughing at them for is impacting you as well.
Also, this is not so rare or "off" as you ignorantly imply.
Just because far too many people(and yes, I have seen more than a few) seem willing to run with the idea of 'I don't care if I get screwed so long as you do too' does not make it any less warped or foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
That is just you putting words in my mouth, and creating a strawman scenario.
I may be in the same country but it does no guarantee that I am in the same boat. I am not poor so I do not suffer the same injustices that plague those less fortunate than me. When I see them band together to take down the rich elite it is often hilarious because they always do it hypocritically and enviously. It has been my experience that the people yelling the loudest are the ones that would do the exact same thing if they were the ones standing in those shoes, just perhaps in a different direction.
Everyone seeks control! Which is the problem, no one seeks liberty, which is why many deserve none of it and why they deserve to be laughed at when they lose at playing the control game.
After all, why should I feel sorry for the Tyrant that loses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If something affects the nation as a whole, you are goddamn sure in the same boat as everyone else living in that country. A government shutdown or a crashing economy does not give a damn whether you are rich or poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me create an analogy for clarification.
Say we are in the middle of the ocean and there is a storm brewing.
You are in a Dingy.
I am in a Yacht.
Hillary is in a submarine.
We are all in the storm but we are going be affected differently. Additionally, you are in the dingy taking water out of the ocean and filling up your boat. I come over and tell you that you are doing it backwards and you tell me to fuck off. I just laugh and go away. I wanted to help, but I am not really getting any pleasure from your stupidity even though I laughed at you. Meanwhile Hillary is about to surface and ask you to help her gang up on me because it is wrong for me to have a yacht while you only have dingy. You see, it is my fault for taking better care of myself and doing what it took to be successful and not letting the fact that I was born poor and penniless keep me in the woe is my life victim class.
And because of that, you will ignore that Hillary has the best boat of all and come after mine in envy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem with your analogy lies in the assumption that I give a shit about what Hillary Clinton does, says, or thinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, he never said you were all in the same storm, he said you were all in the same boat. So your analogy fails because you changed it to something that wasn't originally stated.
As stated:
To dumb it down, essentially he said you're all on the Titanic and it's sinking. With the Titanic here being representative of broadband service in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but whether you're rich or poor fundamentally affects how well-equipped you are to make it through such a situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, sure, you can be obscenely wealthy and survive an economic crash or a government shutdown. But if either one lasts long enough, you will feel the effects sooner or later.
Do you think they still make working guillotines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This fact is beyond the comprehension of those who refuse to acknowledge their complicity in the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Sure my house is burning, but so is yours! Worth it!'
Wow - you're a real piece of work.
Rationalizing bad behavior with idiotic statements is your forte.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FIRED..
How many persons would be FIRED if they couldnt do the Simplest part of their JOB??
What does it take to Monitor what is happening?
When is he going to ENFORCE the laws and regulations he was HIRED FOR???
We only need a couple million to sign a petition..
REMEMBER we are the ones that CONTROL our government..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FIRED..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FIRED..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Effective frequency
Ever hear of effective frequency? Pai figures he just needs to repeat this a few more times, and everyone will believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]