Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
from the ill-communication dept
The biggest study (pdf) ever of its kind has found that net neutrality rules had absolutely no impact on broadband investment whatsoever. The study took an incredibly detailed look at CAPEX data for more than 8,577 different companies (270+ of which were telecom providers) and concluded:
"The results of the paper are clear and should be both unsurprising and uncontroversial. The key finding is there were no impacts on telecommunication industry investment from the net neutrality policy changes. Neither the 2010 or 2015 US net neutrality rule changes had any causal impact on telecommunications investment."
Since the very beginning of the net neutrality debate, ISPs have repeatedly proclaimed that net neutrality rules (read: stopgap rules crafted in the absence of competition to stop giant monopolies from abusing their power) utterly demolished broadband sector investment. It was a primary talking point during the battle over the 2010 rules, and was foundational in the Ajit Pai FCC's arguments justifying their hugely unpopular and fraud prone repeal.
Time after time after time, big ISPs and the politicians paid to love them insisted that the rules had crushed sector investment, and repealing them would result in a massive spike in broadband investment. It was a line repeated again last year by Pai during an FCC oversight hearing (for those interested he wasn't under oath, which applies only to Judiciary hearings):
"Under the heavy-handed regulations adopted by the prior Commission in 2015, network investment declined for two straight years, the first time that had happened outside of a recession in the broadband era...we now have a regulatory framework in place that is encouraging the private sector to make the investments necessary to bring better, faster, and cheaper broadband to more Americans.
It didn't matter that several studies had shown this wasn't true. It didn't matter that journalists who had reviewed public earnings data found no evidence whatsoever to support the claim. It didn't even matter that CEOs for numerous ISPs were clearly on record telling investors the claim wasn't true. It was repeated over and over and over again by the telecom sector and loyal politicians like Pai in the hopes that repetition would somehow forge an alternative reality where what net neutrality opponents felt in their guts would become the indisputable truth.
Throughout the repeal, the Pai FCC repeatedly cited data from telecom lobbying firm US Telecom as gospel, at one point even directing reporters with questions directly to US Telecom lobbyists (that's bad, in case you're wondering). Last year, the group pushed a "study" proclaiming broadband investment had exploded in the wake of the repeal, somehow failing to even notice their study had a fatal flaw:
"Last year, telecom lobbying group US Telecom released a study it claimed showed that broadband investment had spiked dramatically in 2017 thanks to “positive consumer and innovation policies” and a “pro-growth regulatory approach” at the FCC.
The problem? The FCC’s net neutrality rules weren’t formally repealed until June of 2018.
The entire mess speaks plainly to how lobbyists and the lawmakers who love them use repetition, friendly media outlets, and massaged industry-sponsored lobbyist and economist analysis to construct alternate realities that support anti-consumer, anti-innovation policies (like say, letting lumbering, anti-competitive telecom giants do whatever the hell they'd like). As we've noted a few times, it's important to understand that the "net neutrality repeal" didn't just kill net neutrality rules, it all but obliterated the FCC's ability to hold ISPs accountable for much of anything, which was the entire point.
And while the industry may have scored a victory on the front end, the choices made could still come home to roost. Three different major FCC policy efforts have been shot down by the courts in as many months for failing to provide hard evidence actually supporting the decision. Given 23 state AGs have sued the FCC claiming the net neutrality repeal was similarly flawed, plenty of folks are curious if the FCC's net neutrality repeal will soon share a similar fate.
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, broadband, competition, fcc, investment, net neutrality, study
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There you go again
Net Neutrality was a massive intrusion by the government into affairs that are none of its business. I suppose it's futile to ask you to stop obsessing that its repeal is somehow HORRIBLE, though, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Network Neutrality was an attempt by the government to regulate Internet access providers so everyone could access the same Internet as everyone else. I suppose it’s futile to ask that you stop acting as if non-tiered, non-fee-laden Internet access is somehow HORRIBLE, though, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There you go again
"Net Neutrality was a massive intrusion by the government into affairs that are none of its business."
So, you don't know what net neutrality is. Would it kill you people to actually understand the subject before supporting corporate monopolisation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There you go again
If a market is clearly dysfunctional on so many levels, taking a hands-off approach will not fix it.
And labeling it a "massive intrusion" is laughable, but I guess you rather prefer a dysfunctional market that screws customers over repeatedly instead of one that actually benefits customers and the economy.
How about the government demand satisfaction for all the subsidies they have payed out that amounted to nothing?
The big broadband players in the US can only be described as kleptocrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There you go again
Arguably, enforcing anti-trust and false-advertising laws, and ensuring there's competition, could be a better way. Wires, internet access, and services (e.g. video) should be handled by separate companies. Split them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There you go again
"Arguably, enforcing anti-trust and false-advertising laws, and ensuring there's competition, could be a better way. Wires, internet access, and services (e.g. video) should be handled by separate companies. Split them up."
Arguably anything falling under the heading of "core infrastructure" needs to be legislated into allowing equal access. I.e. if you own the network backbone you can certainly charge ISP's for access, but need to do so under transparent and equitable neutral rules.
You can imagine the resulting mess if the power grid, city streets, or water lines were subject to the owner and manufacturer being able to charge people different rates depending on what make of car they were driving or the type of water heater they were using. This is the same argument.
Core infrastructure can't become subject to good market competition simply because it isn't physically realistic to run multiple water, road or electricity networks to the same address. The same holds true for much of the network backbone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There you go again
Protecting consumers from predatory industries with significant regulatory capture is not the government's business. Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There you go again
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There you go again
I take it you've never heard of proof by contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There you go again
First, there needs to be some kind of proof behind the contrafiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There you go again
"I take it you've never heard of proof by contradiction."
Thad describes an argument and you ask if he has heard of a proof.
Not sure what you are getting at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There you go again
Proof by Contradiction is more than just a contradiction. It is a series of statements to establish a proposition as true or valid by starting with an assumption that the proposition is incorrect to show that if the proposition is incorrect a contradiction occurs thereby proving that premise A is actually true.
But proof by contradiction requires that you establish the premise you assume is incorrect, and then formally prove the contradiction must occur. Just claiming a contradiction does not establish a proof by contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: There you go again
And then you will need an argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How's that measles infection coming along, bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Rotted his brain right out through his ears, bless his heart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, don't bless his heart, I want the measles to rot that too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, don't bless his heart, I want the measles to rot that too!"
This is Baghdad Bob we're talking about. He uses a tape recorder stacked with MPAA slogans for a brain and in place of heart he has a handful of broken glass and rusty nails. Neither of which is subject to measles, i'm afraid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, that's not blue. Believe it or not JdL actually has a history of a few measured, thoughtful responses (it's a weird 50-50 that is barely straddling a closer affinity towards his anti-vaccine rants).
But I'd still be for blue catching measles. If he's immune to it, it should be fine to give it to him, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An anti-vaxxer who thinks government enforcing the level playing field is somehow government overreaching?
Sho 'nuff, that IS still more sane than old Baghdad Bob/Blue.
But hard to discern given only one sentence to judge from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So ass backwards the call you Kris Kross
Not surprising an anti vaxer would be wrong about net neutrality though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There you go again
Net neutrality?..
So that Each corp,,Does not CLOSE UP and restrict access to OTHER internet services.
To get the Fighting of ISP and internet services to STOP..
Even after Netflix created a Service in 1 Major ISP system, they were restricted.
We have ISP's trying to create what is available by the Internet Services corps, those out in the net. And not understanding a few things.
Those corps FOUGHT to get where they are. They weathered the battles with RIAA/MPAA/others to stay out there and keep a business happening.
The ISP's tend to be Bill collectors more then innovators. They want money NOW, they want profit NOW... they dont want to take the time to create something over TIME that can Compete with what is THERE..
The Current battles out in the net are the Freedom of speech problems.. 1 wants everything to be Free to say and Spam, and the other wants abit of moderation, and another wants RESTRICTIONS all to hell..(might as well be in China).
There is something the Gov. wants, for REASONS...
A full wired system.
For emergencies, it is the best way to have everything underground. Most Catastrophes wont affect in the ground systems. This idea was from WWII. Any understanding of the weakness of Wireless. explains WHY we need a full wired system. and the Gov. has supported and backed and Paid for that system over many years.
Lets look at the Corps here, and what do they control.
Cable/Sat/Wireless/Cell/fiber/ anything that controls Communication. from TV to the internet to the phone on the wall. We pay them for any access. and they dont/wont consolidate it..They want $100+ per month from every person in the USA..Even if they Force you to pay for ESPN and you dont WATCH ESPN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There you go again
Aren't you glad that when you call up your favorite pizza place that your phone company doesn't redirect the call to one of their "partner" pizza houses, or requests that you pay an additional fee for connecting to a "non-partner" pizza house? Or purposely reducing call quality such that ordering from your favorite place is not even possible?
Seems like that massive intrusion by the government into how phone companies operate, like preventing the above abusive scenario, hasn't seem to hinder the phone companies from continually investing into their network and infrastructure. (There are definitely things to complain about the telcos and anti-trust due to these same regulations, but the regulation of them being a common carrier is worth upholding)
Without some form of NN, the IAPs will be able to do that which is not allowed by the phone company, i.e. redirect my traffic to a destination of their choosing unless I pay more. And to say they won't is to have your head in the sand. I live in downtown Seattle and Comcast is the only option at my location. PERIOD. Well, ok, I can get Centurylink at the blazingly fast speed of 12Mbs, but is that really an option. Therefore, if they start fucking with my internet connection there is nothing I can do but get shit on because I have no alternative service to use.
And of course it's not going to happen overnight. Look how long it's taken the IAPs to institute data caps on what was previously unlimited service, but now that is standard policy.
Lastly, it wasn't the government telling IAPs how to run their business, it was the government telling IAPs what they can not do to customer's internet traffic, similar to being a phone company in what they can not do to their customer's phone traffic.
Net Neutrality is needed as a way to protect consumers from the monopoly stranglehold that IAPs have on our country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump's authoritarian! Trump's a fascist.. Hey, let's give him more control over the Internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Network Neutrality does not, and would not, give the government “more control over the Internet”. It would allow the government to tell an Internet access provider (IAP) that they can’t make a tiered Internet or make people pay extra to access certain sites. Unless you want to pay for faster access to Netflix (on top of your Netflix subscription) but have free, unfettered access to your IAP’s preferred streaming service (membership not included, natch), your opposition to Network Neutrality is…puzzling, at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ironically, if Trump were to gain more control over the internet, it would be through corporate interests rather than government. Losing NN protections just makes this easier for him, as he has less companies that need to be bribed/threatened/whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably the funniest part of the 'network neutrality is the government taking control of the internet' idea is that it's almost dead backwards, in that it's the government stepping in to prevent companies taking control of the internet by deciding who gets what treatment on it.
If anything network neutrality rules are meant to impose control over the companies that provide access to the internet, to keep them from gaining 'more control over the internet', making for a delightful bit of humor where the same people arguing against what they portray as the government trying to control the internet are in fact arguing for private companies to have that control instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah.
The funniest part of the "network neutrality is the government taking control of the Internet" idea is that it's fuelled by a bunch of ignorant motherfuckers who would gladly demand the government take control of Twitter, climate change funding, the NSA and global surveillance etc. "Facebook is letting people call me mean things! The government should do something!" they scream. "Wait, net neutrality gives control of the Internet to the government? IT MUST DIE."
Seriously, wtf?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who said the control would be given to Trump?
Ajit Pai won't control the Internet, so why does he give a shit if individual states choose to do so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so, what do you think is going to be believed, this and other studies that prove that the 'Net Neutrality' repeal did no harm to investment or what the 'big ISPs and the politicians paid to love them' say? i'll bet a dime to a pinch of crap which wins!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We were told that we would not be able to access sites that whoever-my-internet-service-provider is doesn't like if we don't have government-controlled internet access.
We haven't had 'net neutrality' for a while now, yet somehow, I can still access any site I want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I said when the rules were repealed: The IAPs aren’t going to do that shit all at once ASAP. They know better. The rollout will be slow and measured so one small aspect of a “non-Neutral” Internet can be turned into an everyday thing that people accept without question or complaint. Once they have that foot in the door, everything else will come easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, I'll listen to the guy who says Trump is setting up ovens on the border and will, any day now, start executing millions of illegal immigrants.
Both are bound to happen any day now, right?
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ah yeah, you definitely seem like the person who will be swayed by facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three things.
Concentration camps and death camps are not the same thing.
Don’t put words in my mouth that didn’t first come from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, I'm putting words in your mouth...
Also, if you're delusional in this regard, that should make anyone weary that you're delusional in your other opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, I'm putting words in your mouth...
Indeed! Good to see you recognize it.
Also, if you're delusional in this regard, that should make anyone weary that you're delusional in your other opinions.
An excellent point. Thank you clarifying that we should all proceed to disregard everything you say. I tip my hat to your self-awareness, good sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All you have is a "I know you are but what am I?" response.
Are you seven years old?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All you have is a "I know you are but what am I?" response.
Ah, but good sir, I fear you have misunderstood the response! It's not "I know you are but what am I" it's "your attempt at sarcasm is instead the naked truth."
You see, you have no actual ground to stand on, so you instead rephrase what everyone else is saying, attempting to create a false image of what is truly being said, and then tear down that much easier target.
When called on this behavior, you attempt to deflect with sarcasm, but the sarcasm fails because it is simply a description of what you actually did.
I don't need anything else, you see. I could re-tread the arguments that others have made, but they are already there in plain text, both in the article and the comments, for all to see - and your lack of ability to rebut is on full display.
All I need is to point out your failure, and congratulate you on realizing it.
Are you seven years old?
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Yeah, I'm putting words in your mouth..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I implied: “The likelihood of American concentration camps turning into (intentional) death camps is not-zero.”
What you think I said or implied: “Trump is setting up ovens on the border and will, any day now, start executing millions of illegal immigrants.”
Again: Stop shoving words in my mouth that did not first come from it. If you can’t address what I said, addressing your strawman version of what I said isn’t going to make your weak-ass point any stronger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Yeah, I'm putting words in your mouth..."
You did. He didn't mention ovens. He didn't mention executions. He didn't say "millions".
He did mention concentration camps, which by the actual definition of the term is absolutely applicable. His did mention people dying in those camps, which has already happened. He did imply that this stuff is going to be getting worse before it gets better, and that people like you will just accept it because you're being trained to accept those people as less than human. All of this is documented as fact.
Try reading the actual words people say instead of what you want them to say, because otherwise you're just arguing over fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know the two of you (you and Stone) tag-team to attack anyone who doesn't agree completely with the echo chamber on this site, but I'll attempt to break through your NPC programming:
I don't see anyone as less than human; you're projecting. It's the left that has a history of seeing people as less-than-human, e.g., slavery, communism, etc.
When he says "well, it doesn’t take a genius to see where that shit is headed," along with his view that Trump is another Hitler, it's obvious he is thinking ovens are coming and about to be used. Maybe Stone could have a tiny amount of courage and own up to his delusions instead of shrinking away from his outrageous claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...but I'll attempt to break through your NPC programming:
I don't see anyone as less than human; you're projecting.
So, you call them "NPCs" and then say you don't see anyone as less than human. You contradicted yourself immediately.
It's the left that has a history of seeing people as less-than-human, e.g., slavery, communism, etc.
I'm gonna need some evidence to back up this assertion.
When he says "well, it doesn’t take a genius to see where that shit is headed," along with his view that Trump is another Hitler, it's obvious he is thinking ovens are coming and about to be used. Maybe Stone could have a tiny amount of courage and own up to his delusions instead of shrinking away from his outrageous claims?
Maybe you could have a tiny amount of courage and own up to your support of human rights violations in the form of concentration camps? It doesn't have to be death camp to be morally reprehensible.
Maybe you could have a tiny amount of courage and stop trying to justify your argument with nonsense, unsubstantiated claims, and strawman arguments? I'd love to see you make something approaching a real argument, rather than the rhetorical contrivances of "Right?" and "echo chamber" and "accuse my opposition of that which those I support are guilty of."
But I doubt that will occur. After all, you cannot even do sarcasm without instead exposing the naked truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, not really. Just as I can see people programmed in cults being able to be de-programmed and returned to sanity and society, so can NPCs who've swallowed the programming that makes them see anything right of Stalin as bad. They're still human, they just need mental health treatment.
You need evidence that Democrats supported slavery and now communism? Are you really that detached from reality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy crap, are you really going to pretend you don't know about the big switch of parties? You were already on thin ice, but that just completely torpedoes any credibility you had. You might as well just talk about chemtrails now, you will be taken just as seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's look at this claim that the Republicans are the party of racists.
Here's the list of Dixiecrat Senators (the racist ones) who became Democrats when the Civil Rights Act was passed:
(D) VA Harry F. Byrd, 1933-1965
(D) VA A. Willis Robertson, 1946-1966
(D) WV Robert C. Byrd, 1959-2010
(D) MS John C. Stennis, 1947-1989
(D) MS James O. Eastland, 1941-1941, 1943-1978
(D) LA Allen J. Ellender, 1937-1972
(D) LA Russell B. Long, 1948-1987
(D) NC Sam Ervin, 1954-1974
(D) NC Everett Jordan, 1958-1973
(D) OK Thomas Pryor Gore, 1906-1921, 1931-1937
(D) AL J. Lister Hill, 1938-1969
(D) AL John J. Sparkman, 1946-1979
(D) FL Spessard Holland, 1946-1971
(D) FL George Smathers, 1951-1969
(D) SC Olin D. Johnston, 1945-1965
(D) AR John McClellan, 1943-1977
(D) GA Richard B. Russell, Jr., 1933-1971
(D) GA Herman E. Talmadge, 1957-1981
(D) TN Herbert S. Walters, 1963-1964
And here's the list of Dixiecrat Senators who became Republicans:
(R) NC Jesse Helms, 1973-2003
(D,R) SC Strom Thurmond, 1954-1956, 1956-2003
According to Congressional Quarterly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
passed the House 290-130, and Republican support for the bill was much stronger than Democratic: 61 percent (152-96) of the Democrats supported the legislation while 80 percent (138-34) of the Republicans backed it. These numbers were similar in the Senate: 69 percent of Democrats (46-21), backed the bill along with 82 percent of Republicans (27-6).
To say the Republicans are the party of racists is misguided at best. Nice try, though.
Also, we're not the party who says minorities are too stupid to get an ID (needed for any meaningful access to society), too stupid to take care of themselves (need affirmative action to get ahead), too stupid to take care of their families (need government handouts to survive) and are too stupid to have children (necessitating a much higher abortion rate than whites). Everything about the Democratic Party is turning out disgusting, and yet, here you are, proclaiming your fealty to such a racist, misogynist, and brutal party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah too bad your statements are misleading by only showing part of what happened. Yes those originally split from their parties and formed the dixiecrat party. Which after facing a horrible defeat nationally dissolved and the members returned to their original parties foe the most part. However they went back begrudgingly and later split from the democrates to form what is now the Republican party with major backing in the South
"Although the Dixiecrats immediately dissolved after the 1948 election, their impact lasted much longer. Many white voters who initially cast Dixiecrat ballots gravitated back toward the Democratic Party only grudgingly, and they remained nominal Democrats at best. Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South."
https://m.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/dixiecrats
And others point out the same twisting of facts even in this Yahoo answers page.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120213065857AABjdGQ
I dont consider Yahoo answers a reliable source but it is funny to see how others easily reject your revisionist version of history.
There were even things called books that talk about this subject.
Frederickson, Kari (14 January 2003). The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932-1968. University of North Carolina Press
https://books.google.com/books?id=_Y0MCgAAQBAJ&dq=dixiecrat+1948+convention&source=gbs _navlinks_s
It will never cease to amaze me that people like you will spout off lies and half truths when there are more resources than ever before which debunk your comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just to take the very first one on the list:
"Harry Flood Byrd Sr. (June 10, 1887 – October 20, 1966) of Berryville in Clarke County, Virginia was an American newspaper publisher and political leader of the Democratic Party in Virginia for four decades as head of a political faction that became known as the Byrd Organization."
"Although paying his black and white workers similarly, Byrd was vehemently opposed to racial desegregation even early in the New Deal, and later opposed Presidents Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy despite their also being Democrats (as well as losing Democratic Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson) because they opposed racial discrimination within the federal workforce. "
Emphasis mine. He didn't switch to the Democratic Party, he was always a Democrat, at the time when they were still the party of racism and segregation in the South. I will assume the rest of your list is equally incorrect and your entire comment can be ignored, unless I see a reason to think otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whoops wrong Harry F. Byrd!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So now that I have the right guy: "After the decline of his family's political machine, due to its infamous support of massive resistance, he abandoned the Democratic Party in 1970, citing concern about its leftward tilt."
The complete opposite of becoming a Democrat after the Civil Rights Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_F._Byrd_Jr.
How about Robert C. Byrd? "A member of the Democratic Party, Byrd previously served as a U.S. Representative from 1953 until 1959."
John C. Stennis? " He was a Democrat who served in the Senate for over 41 years"
Yeah you're just full of crap I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m not going to explain each of those people in detail here. That’d be a long exercise with little payoff. However, it’s worth noting that we’re talking about a long-term change that was made manifest by the Civil Rights Act, so your list doesn’t prove what you think it does.
It’s worth noting that Dixiecrats abandoned the Democratic Party because they felt it was going too far to the left; in other words, civil rights and anti-discrimination laws are, or were, leftist ideas.
You are conflating “the left” with the Democratic Party. These are not the same thing. At one point, what is currently considered to be leftist or rightist ideas were pretty mixed between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Democrats were largely conservative but supported farmers. Republicans were somewhat liberal and supported factory workers and reasonable regulation of businesses while still idealizing big businesses. A lot of that has changed now.
Also, you were the first one here to refer to any party as “the party of racists”, and the first one to do so in a sentence about Republicans. I think that is telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"can NPCs who've swallowed the programming that makes them see anything right of Stalin as bad"
So, you not only have been programmed to see people a particular way, you have to ascribe fictional opinions to them?
"They're still human, they just need mental health treatment."
Last I checked, it's the 8-channers who frequent places that label people as "NPCs" who are shooting up public places.
"You need evidence that Democrats supported slavery "
Do you need evidence as to how the parties switches ideologies after the southern strategy?
"now communism"
NOW communism? I'd love to see your evidence for that (and, no, advocating for the same healthcare amnd social rights that are working in other Western democracies is not communism).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You need evidence that Democrats supported slavery and now communism?"
I'm pretty sure not a single democrat anywhere has EVER supported the abolition of private property.
As for slavery you WERE correct. Democrats did indeed at one point support slavery - until the New Deal when every pro-slaver and KKK member migrated to the republican party. At least know your own political history, Baghdad Bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You need evidence that Democrats supported slavery and now communism? Are you really that detached from reality?
No. I need evidence that the left - which in the US of A is a descriptor for a set of ideology that does not automatically mean "Democrat" - has said history. Your original statement was:
It's the left that has a history of seeing people as less-than-human, e.g., slavery, communism, etc.
See, it's another case of putting words in people's mouths. You said "the left" - I replied to "the left" and now you go off about "democrats."
So, yes, oh obstreperous participant in this stage-play demonstrating the futility of debate with those who spout off about "the left" without an understanding of the actual ideology they claim they oppose, I do in fact need actual evidence that the left has a history of the things you claim.
Not the Democrats. The left.
(everyone else has already addressed the ideological party switch, so I don't need to go into that - plus, it's irrelevant, because again, THE LEFT, not "Democrats")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"(everyone else has already addressed the ideological party switch, so I don't need to go into that - plus, it's irrelevant, because again, THE LEFT, not "Democrats")"
And we still need to have some sort of cursory answer as to "the left of what, exactly?". A traditional Eisenhower conservative will be upheld as a flag-waving stalinist by some of the self-defined "alt-right" crowd - you know, the crowd hanging out on sites like Breitbart and Stormfront.
Whereas to a conservative liberal "the left" might mean those guys who advocate radical shifts in wealth distribution by taxing the life out of the 1%.
It occurs to me that almost anytime american politics are brought up, many of the key words are suddenly radically redefined depending on which group starts using them as rhetorical hammers.
"Liberal" used to be a compliment - from the Founding fathers up to eisenhower. Today it appears to often be used in lieu of "drug-addled communist cannibal abomination with kinks beyond the pale and ambiguous sexuality and gender identity" by every self-styled "conservative" who needs a good short words with which to describe their political adversaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I know the two of you (you and Stone) tag-team to attack anyone who doesn't agree"
You might "know" this but you do appear to be wrong...
"NPC"
... Whereas I have noticed that people who use terms like this are taught them by actual echo chambers that tell them to consider people who disagree with them as less than human. Come on you don't dehumanise people but you use a word that describes automations to address them? Think about it for a moment...
"his view that Trump is another Hitler"
Do you have a cute for this, or us this more of your unique insight?
You know what's missing from your rebuttal here? An admission that you put the words that you stated (and he didn't) in his mouth or any admission that the term concentration camp does not necessarily have the meaning your thinking of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet, here you are. Imagine that.
Sorry, but someone who is in the throes of mental illness (an NPC) isn't less-than-human. If they received treatment for their delusions, many of them can live productive lives free of destructive thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was going to cast Riddikulus on you but it seems someone already did before you came here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see you have a problem separating reality from fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No Shape, just thought I would lighten the mood a bit with some humor. But I can see that was pointless based on your previous comments. So I shouldn't have wasted my time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And yet, here you are. Imagine that."
Yes, I do respond to people who directly address me. Why is that a problem?
"someone who is in the throes of mental illness"
Yes, it's handy to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as mentally ill. Help you not understand their real opinions, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, that’s not what an NPC is. An NPC, or Non-Player Character, is a character that is controlled entirely or primarily by automated algorithms (or the dungeon master in a tabletop RPG) rather than by human inputs (or the players in a tabletop RPG). It is also slang for a person or entity who either is of no consequence or lacks self-agency. It is emphatically not someone who is delusional or suffers from a mental illness. If you can’t see how it is dehumanizing to do so, then I’m afraid there may be no help for you.
Second, not every “delusion” is “destructive thinking”. It’s unfortunate, and something should probably be done to correct any delusions you find, but that’s not the same thing as being “destructive”.
Third, and this is about other comments too, but you don’t seem to understand the terms “Democrat”, “left”, “communism”, “mental illness”, “NPC”, and “know”. You also love to make strawmen to kick down and crow about it.
Fourth, I’m pretty sure PaulT is not from the U.S., so “dehumanise” is the correct spelling for him. It was completely unnecessary to “correct” him.
And fifth, you still haven’t addressed the actual points he made here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was gonna let this go, but I feel that — in this narrow instance — you deserve a response.
I don’t believe Trump is another Hitler. Trump is too ignorant, too incompetent, and too self-absorbed to be another Hitler. Even Hitler thought he was doing the right thing for his country; Trump does things only to improve his social status.
But that isn’t to say his administration isn’t showing signs of Nazi-esque behavior. Between…
the attacks on both the independent press and critics from Trump-friendly outlets;
the expressed belief that the president is wholly above both oversight and accountability;
the dehumanizing of immigrants and Mexicans;
the refusal to improve election security ahead of 2020;
the numerous anti-LGBT policies (e.g., the ban on trans people in the military) and stances (e.g., saying the Civil Rights Act doesn’t cover anti-LGBT discrimination);
the threats made toward the Ukraine call whistleblower and their sources; and
…well, the Trump administration and its enablers aren’t making themselves look good in comparison to the Nazis.
And yes, I did say “it doesn’t take a genius to see where that shit is headed”. But that doesn’t mean I meant it as “the death camps are coming right now”. I meant it as “the concentration camps can and will eventually become death camps”. The Nazi death camps weren’t the start of the process; they were the end of it. That process started with ghettos and concentration camps.
On a long enough timeline, the likelihood that Trump — or a competent Trump-like authoritarian — would eventually allow executions at the concentration camps will hit 100%. It’s not hard to see how a corrupt government could justify the practice, either: “These animals, this invasion, all of this…subhuman filth must be dealt with for the good of the country!” You might think that’s a bit much, but a look at the language used by Trump and his supporters on the issue of immigration says otherwise.
Dehumanization is a key tactic in oppressing the Repugnant Cultural Other. It’s why anti-LGBT attitudes are now largely seen as antiquated and backwards: It’s hard to say “gay people don’t deserve civil rights” when you think of gay people not as a societal boogeyman, but as people. Trump’s constant dehumanizing of the people he hates (and the people his supporters hate) is but one part of the anti-immigration actions taken by his administration. If he wins a second term and isn’t impeached out of office, those four years will likely make his first term look downright tame. The odds of the concentration camps becoming death camps will rise, too. That transition likely won’t happen in Trump’s lifetime…but it’s not a complete impossibility, either.
…
Incidentally: You say you don’t dehumanize people, then you call people NPCs because they don’t agree with your political opinions. Holding onto the cognitive dissonance for that belief must require severe headache medication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have mixed opinions about Trump but the implication that he or his movements general aim has anything to do with killing a bunch of Christians is not a reality based imho.
It's fine to be passionate about not liking certain things associated with the Trump administration but your post seems to lack a certain amount of objectivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I never said or implied anything about Christians. Besides, I doubt Trump and his followers care about the religious beliefs of people they deem Repugnant Cultural Others. And while Trump and his followers may not explicitly call for the deaths/executions of immigrants and Mexicans (yet), they won’t shed tears if it happens through negligence…or a mass casualty shooting committed by a domestic terrorist in a city known for a large immigrant population.
As for the objectivity thing: Yes, I have a bias against Trump and his administration. But have you seen [gestures broadly at everything]? If you can look at everything done by the Trump administration since he took office and go “well, maybe it’s not all that bad”, perhaps you have a bias of your own that you need to explore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just want to add to your list: calling for a member of the opposition political party to be investigated for treason, which carries the death penalty*. Fortunately we're not to the point where he feels he can get away with actually directing his AG to do so, but it's still disturbing.
* Adam Schiff, for the way he summarized Trump's Ukraine phone call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You think Hitler was competent? Or just more competent than Trump?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hitler was competent at many tasks, that was one of the big problems. He built large, dedicated organizations of domestic and international support networks. He rebuilt the German armed forces and invested heavily new innovative technologies. He managed an economic turn around of Germany before he ruined the German economy with another world war. He also built an impressive coalition of nations to carry out his policies.
Until he betrayed the Soviets and the Japanese brought the US into the war in an unrelated incident, he may have been the smart money to win that war.
I guess morality counts and he was completely morally repugnant and evil but if he didn't have some basic competences he wouldn't have been much of a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I guess morality counts and he was completely morally repugnant and evil but if he didn't have some basic competences he wouldn't have been much of a problem."
What was the main issue with hitler is that he came close to being an idiot savant - inept at everything he tried until he ended up in a political leadership position where his ability to identify and deploy talent and opportunity catapulted the struggling nazi party into a nation-spanning behemoth.
Even so it took a nation brought completely to its knees before that party with it's ideology of scapegoatism and hatemongering could gain power. Germany post-WW1 was paying crippling damages boosting an unheard-of hyperinflation and resulting in a complete industrial collapse. Images exist of germans carting wheelbarrows full of million-mark bills to the market in order to buy a few dozen of eggs.
Hitler was deranged and came into power riding on a wave of desperation - but he wasn't inept. Well, not until his personal physician started doping him up with a daily cocktail of half a dozen types of uppers, downers, and hallucinogens...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nice strawman....since you don't have a valid argument against NN, you instead have to deflect to something completely outside of the topic of this discussion.
And for your reference:
concentration camp
Unless you believe you have a higher knowledge of the English language than the American Heritage Dictionary, you are wrong to think that all concentration camps are death camps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes no matter to me.
Hey bro are you gonna Godwin every thread you’re in? You’re wrong, apologise and move on. Or keep acting like a bitch and we will keep treating you like one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"the guy who says Trump is setting up ovens on the border and will, any day now, start executing millions of illegal immigrants."
I do not recall seeing said comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You probably should buy a hearing aid bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"the guy who says Trump is setting up ovens on the border"
Nobody says that. However, he has set up concentration camps. It's not Stephen's fault if you're too emotional/uneducated to understand the actual definition of the term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody said you wouldn't be able to access other sites. What was said that your ISP would zero-rate their own services while adding caps to other sites.
Did you miss the fact that some providers are resizing (shrinking) video from sites that weren't zero-rated?
Did you miss the fact that some providers demanded payment from other sites to carry their traffic without throttling (double dipping)?
Are you disingenuous or do you just not understand what's going on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think that's what's happening. An ISP is not going to intercept, re-encode, and retransmit a video stream (and if it's over HTTPS, which I think they all are now, they couldn't). What they do is throttle the bit rate, and then it's up to the video provider to downgrade the video quality. The end result to the user is the same, but the mechanism is different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Congratulations, Mr. Frog. You've been boiled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I doubt he would qualify as a frog.
He would first have to demonstrate that he is a vertebrate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"We were told that we would not be able to access sites that whoever-my-internet-service-provider is doesn't like if we don't have government-controlled internet access"
No you weren't.
"We haven't had 'net neutrality' for a while now, yet somehow, I can still access any site I want."
You're pretty dumb if you think the changes would happen overnight, and also missing the core of what was being said.
You were not told that sites would suddenly disappear. You were told that ISP would use their power to ensure that competing online services would be throttled if they did not pay a fee, they would use unfair practices to ensure that they have anti-competitive advantages over any other services and they'd likely include some kind of fee- based tiering system to ensure you pay more overall.
People like you would notice that you were lied to if this happened overnight, they know how to deal with fools slowly so that when you do notice they've locked out any competitors you might opt to move to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When it comes to companies censoring content, you want neutrality, yet when comes to ISPS having the power to package up the Internet, and or use data caps etc. to give their associated content an advantage you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We were told that we would not be able to access sites that whoever-my-internet-service-provider is doesn't like if we don't have government-controlled internet access.
No you weren't. And no one was calling for a "government-controlled internet" you very silly person.
We haven't had 'net neutrality' for a while now, yet somehow, I can still access any site I want.
Honestly, this is the moronic equivalent of holding up a snowball in Congress as proof that there's no climate change happening. You look very, very dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All of the 'sky is falling!' claims that we need net neutrality right now! or bad things will happen! haven't come true.
Maybe try using false claims that can't be so easily refuted, like the climate change alarmists?
Oh, and on that note: https://clintel.nl/brief-clintel-aan-vn-baas-guterres/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bad things will happen. They'll just be arranged too slowly for ignoramuses like you to notice and you'll attack the next person trying to protect you for trying to fix it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it could be a month from now, a year from now, or a century from now, but bad things will happen!
You have to give government complete control over the internet to protect you from those evil companies that have to serve customers properly or their customers will give their business to some other company that treats them better!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You have to give government complete control over the internet"
Again with the lying. Whyk is it so hard for you to understand peoples' real opinions and what protecting net neutrality actually is. It's not what you claim.
"companies that have to serve customers properly or their customers will give their business to some other company that treats them better!"
Did you miss the part where part of net neutrality is preventing collusion in areas where there's little to no real competition?
Of course you did, because you get your information from places that calls people asking for a free market "NPCs" and mentally ill....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again with the lying. Whyk is it so hard for you to understand peoples' real opinions and what protecting net neutrality actually is. It's not what you claim.
Because doing so would utterly undermine what passes for their argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All of the 'sky is falling!' claims that we need net neutrality right now! or bad things will happen! haven't come true.
False. Zero rating has become prevalent for video systems, as we've reported multiple times.
Also, as we noted, none of the ISPs was going to push into the really bad stuff until the lawsuit is over. But, either way, no one said the "sky was falling" in the way you described. YOU LITERALLY MADE THAT UP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice how there are zero non-shitheads attacking NN in the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's because there actually isn't an anti-NN argument that's based in reality. Most of them depend on having been lied to about what it is, or just a "fear the government" position with no real basis in reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And most if not all of these lies come from extreme-right/libertatian/corporate astroturfers, and guzzled up by their useful idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Guzzled like delicious, delicious paint chips.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Get your similes in order.
Paint chips are a solid.
Guzzel refers to quaffing a liquid quickly.
Guzzle lead paint would have worked with the implied state of the paint being liquid and consumed in mass quantities.
Scarf paint chips would also have worked making an analogy with tortilla or potato chips.
I like the second one since it implies the existence of at least one dip in the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/guzzle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I like the second one since it implies the existence of at least one dip in the equation."
The dip is made of mercury. There is no liking to be had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the shills come out of the woodwork
No less than three comments in 20 minutes parroting industry talking points and claims about Net Neutrality.
Whether intentionally or not, y'all shilling hard, NN haters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the shills come out of the woodwork
... and the techdirt community is feeding those trolls. Oh well, some people like ridiculing others and they probably deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nah, Trump made a deal with Putin and so the Russian Trolls ...
The Russian trolls are all over this one, that way when the 'support' comments are tracked down, it won't appear to be our own government supporting the disfunction (only causing it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nah, Trump made a deal with Putin and so the Russian Trolls
It seems more that the Russians got involved in NN when Manafort handed over that internal polling data to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nah, Trump made a deal with Putin and so the Russian Tro
Los Ukrainian Webport - you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pai Just Got Phoenix Wright’d
Pai: Net Neutrality must be repealed to protect the Internet.
The Massive Study That Proves Otherwise: OBJECTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To support your thesis, you must show current collapse WITHOUT.
You can't, of course, so this is just assertions that can't be falsified.
Fact is: the industry has gone on steadily increasing capacity as for the last, oh, forty years, say. There were microwave links at The Phone Company in the 70s...
And if you're going to claim prices went up, then you must factor in the actual inflation of about trillion dollars a year simply printed: easily done by comparing with overall price of "stocks" that essentially have more than doubled in the period. So price increases show nothing except is more "money" sloshing around...
And then you're left with my prior prediction that has gone on pretty much as before!
Can I hope from your titling that you will NEVER AGAIN run similar piece? You can reference this as though nailed down, 'cause who cares? But some other main topic, okay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sup liar
“Can I hope from your titling that you will NEVER AGAIN run similar piece?”
Just as soon as you “never again will I darken your doorstep” bro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better question: How willing are you to denounce the use of copyright as a method of censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To support your thesis, you must show current collapse WITHO
Bzzzzt!
Red flag - reversing the burden or proof fallacy from Blue.
That's a penalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troll beats drum, plays out of tune
I see that your reading comprehension is on the poor side as usual. Here's some key questions you should answer before posting poorly formed drivel:
Who wrote the report?
What conclusions could be drawn from the report?
Who lied (and still is) about the impact of NN?
I don't expect an answer since you are a dishonest coward that runs away when presented with facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are the divisions (commas) on Elsever's charts set at 2 (00,00,) not 3 (000,000,)? Saving ink, or an Elsivor watermark?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the investors did what you would expect?
Uh...how is the fact that the investment started before the policy actually took effect proof that the two weren't related?
That would seem like typical investment strategy. You invest before the thing you expect to bring in a ton of profits goes into effect, so that you are already there to reap the rewards once it does. Expecting that investment would tick up only after the rules were fully in effect seems like expecting investments in a stock to increase after that stock has just hit a five year high. Outside of some extremely rare circumstances, anyone who invests at that point is probably a fool who's likely to lose their money.
Don't get me wrong, Pai is a crook and the repeal of net neutrality is awful...which is exactly why I'm bothered by what seems to be such a poor argument against it!It might be a decent argument if that investment started before the plan to repeal was even announced, but even then it's possible that some of those investors were betting that it would soon become a priority for whatever reason (either inside channels or just looking at who Pai is.)
I'm not billion dollar investor though so maybe I'm missing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So the investors did what you would expect?
One of the key-points that they repeated over and over was how NN would drive investment down. Before and during the existence of NN investment increased but the moment FCC dumped NN the investments went down (well, except for Sprint that needed to increase their market-share).
If you don't have to compete fairly you don't need to invest to stay competitive either, especially if can double-dip to get some extra income for nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard Bennett's not going to like this, is he?
Here comes another 200 comments of a grumpy old man pissing in his own oatmeal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And telling us it’s raining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#NetNeutrality
NetNeutrality is about treating all internet data equally, thus preventing bad ISPs from screwing their customers by creating shutting down the flow to competitor sites, critic pages, and high bandwidth sites, as well as creating pay for priority schemes ...
The biggest study ever of its kind has found that net neutrality rules had absolutely no impact on broadband investment whatsoever. The study took an incredibly detailed look at CAPEX data for more than 8,577 different companies (270+ of which were telecom providers) and concluded: "The results of the paper are clear and should be both unsurprising and uncontroversial. The key finding is there were no impacts on telecommunication industry investment from the net neutrality policy changes. Neither the 2010 or 2015 US net neutrality rule changes had any causal impact on telecommunications investment."Digg · Net result
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This post is nonsense
Go read George Ford's paper on Hooton's latest fiasco. The data the dude is using don't mean what he thinks they mean.
But Bode eats it up as if it were legit, writing multiple stories about it on multiple blogs.
Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why Richard, I didn't know you dabbled in necromancy.
Not really. Unless you can explain why the data is all wrong and shouldn't be trusted.
Irrelevant. Even if Ford is right, and there were problems with Hooton's study, ISPs have admitted to investors that the rules had and will have zero effect on investment. And there are VERY severe penalties for lying to investors.
So, are you saying ISPs are lying to their investors? If so, perhaps we should take a closer look at them and how they do business. Hm? If not, well, there goes your argument.
Well, I mean, you can't really talk since the vast majority of the stuff on your blog is all nonsense too.
Sigh.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry, but the Free Press talking point you regurgitate about ISP claims to investors isn't factual.
Both USTA and Hal Singer have analyzed patterns of investment following the Silicon Valley-driven 2015 and its 2017 repeal and found that Title I is a spur to investment, while Title II causes ISPs to divert capital to non-infrastructure activities such as content and services.
You need to get outside Bode's bubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So starting on page 66, which of their claims are incorrect? And please link to the documentation demonstrating it.
https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/2018-06/internet-access-and-online-video-markets-a re-thriving-in-title-II-era.pdf
You don't say, telecom industry sock puppets found results in line with the lobbying aims of the telecom industry? What a shocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no evidence in the offered report supporting the Coward's claim. I can't quite what isn't there.
Cool name-calling, bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A childish schoolyard "no it isn't" response is not proof of anything. Either link to the exact data that shows our position to be incorrect or explain why it's incorrect, otherwise your arguments are dismissed out of hand because you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.
Bad grammar and word salad aside, the claims are there. In both my post, links I've provided, and links nasch has provided. Here, why don't you try this, this is from nasch's link, why don't you try explaining how and why this statement is false:
I'll wait.
He didn't call you a name. But thanks for showing you have an extremely thin skin. I'll call you a few names though: liar and shill.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Comcast's capital spending isn't exclusively on broadband infrastructure, it includes DVRs, set top boxes, and other telephone and TV programming-related expenses. In the presence of stifling broadband regulations, firms shift spending to other parts of their businesses.
In 2018, Comcast upgraded all of its DOCSIS plant to 3.1 with gigabit speed capability. It started this process when it became confident that Title II would be repealed. Now it's doing R&D on the full-duplex, 10Gbps upgrade. That could start rolling out next year, but the prospect of an Karen-headed FCC is already a putting a damper on those plans.
Now that the entire Comcast footprint is gigabit-capable and 10Gbps isn't ready for rollout, what do you think they should be buying?
Your inability to answer that question should tell you that this problem is too subtle for blogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh huh. Sure. What's this then:
Gee, kind of sounds like they spent most of it on broadband related stuff to me.
Which they started in 2016/2017, which means they were planning for it AFTER the 2015 rules went into effect. Kind of full of it there, aren't you?
Let's say you're right. (You're not.) Since they started it before the repeal vote even took place, how could they be confident it would actually pass? Gee, it's almost like they had some inside knowledge of the FCC. Maybe an inside man? Who knows.
As they've already stated.
You mean Karen Peltz Strauss? The person that retired last year? Also, last I checked, Pai is in until 2021. This seems like a very sketchy statement to make.
You might want to tell Intel and Comcast that since they stated they would begin rollout in 2020.
Well, you didn't even give me a chance to try and answer, so I won't. But regardless of that, are you saying that broadband investment runs in cycles and isn't that affected by regulations (GASP!!)? Gee, that sounds like exactly what all us proponents of Net Neutrality were saying back in 2015 and again in 2017 and are STILL saying today. Nice of you to admit you were wrong, finally see the light and come around to our point of view.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's TV gear, not broadband infrastructure
After the 2016 election everyone in Internet policy knew Title II was toast. Cable and phone companies know how to interpret election results.
But I just asked you to try and answer and you failed. That says it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only the X1 platform, not the wireless gateways. So that's ONE thing out of that entire list that's not broadband related. Big whoop.
Oh you mean because all the republican commissioners are paid shills for the telecom industry? Got it.
See above.
Yes, and before even giving me a chance to answer it, you said this:
So I don't feel particularly inclined to answer after that.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, actually, it is. And I didn't get it from Free Press. It's publicly available all over the internet and is now a matter of recorded history. Here's a few links, please, do tell me how the ISP claims to investors "isn't factual":
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-in vestment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/
https://seekingalpha.com/article/3741746-ts-t-ceo-randall -stephenson-presents-ubs-global-media-communications-brokers-conference?part=single
https://www.wire d.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-cripples-investment-thats-not-true/
That all seems pretty factual to me. But what did I expect, you can't tell the truth about ANYTHING. Even something that is a matter of public record and history.
Then I question their analysis because everyone else seems to think it went up after the 2015 order (or didn't change) and went down after the 2017 repeal. In fact, wasn't you who just recently said in another thread that ISPs are planning to CUT investment in 2020? And wasn't it Pai's own data that showed investment at best stayed flat after the 2015 order? You have a very strange way of interpreting facts. Are you dyslexic and confusing up with down and down with up?
For reference:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/01/sorry-ajit-comcast-lowered-cable-i nvestment-despite-net-neutrality-repeal/
https://www.wired.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-cri pples-investment-thats-not-true/
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yw85dk/fcc-gutting-isp-oversight -was-great-for-us-broadband-youre-welcome
https://www.businessinsider.com/fccs-claim-that-broadband- investment-has-dropped-is-flawed-2017-11
Wow. I don't even know where you pulled that crap filled statement from.
Considering I've provided links to non-Bode sources, I'd say I'm doing fairly well in that department. You, on the other hand, might want to get your head out of where the sun don't shine...Dick.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, none of the blog posts by Bodkin or Bode are worth reading. The only potentially meaningful statement you have is Randall Stephenson's earnings call comments, and none of those comments support your claim. He said, in essence, that AT&T isn't going out of business. He said the company planned to complete projects already in progress, and he said Title II didn't harm the company's competitive position because all firms had the same handicaps.
You can't quantify the impact of regulation on investment by pretending that all capital spending is dictated by regulation, you need to isolate the effects of regulation from all the other factors in play. Economists call this a "but for" analysis.
Go look that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I quoted several that were not by them but....why not? (Also, who is Bodkin? I didn't link to anything by him. Brodkin, sure, but not Bodkin.)
Point out exactly what statements they are wrong about and link to the data proving it. But regardless of that, that doesn't change the fact that ISPs did say the 2015 rules would not affect their investment.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Oh really? Let's read on to see if that's true or not.
Uh huh. So what's this:
Everything huh. Doesn't sound like just projects in progress to me.
You mean like how we all kept saying that investment isn't dictated by regulation alone and instead goes in cycles and is affected by other factors? So what you're saying is the 2015 order probably didn't have as much impact as you claimed. Right?
Nah. I think I'll just take the ISPs at their word when they told their investors the 2015 order didn't and wouldn't hurt them. Everything else is irrelevant (since they would know EXACTLY how the regulation would affect them), unless you want to make the argument that they lied to their investors. Is that the argument you want to make?
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You've yet to show how looking that up would negate the ISPs saying Title II didn't and would not hurt investment. Anything else is irrelevant.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know what's utterly and completely absent from any of your comments Richard? Any links to supporting evidence. You may notice many of the comments debunking you have blue text pointing to external documents. Why is it you have completely failed to point to anything backing up your position?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Changing the subject...
I've shown that this post by Karl Bode is an attempt to amplify a fake study funded by the Internet Association.
Reaction of the victims of the post who took it as gospel: "But....what about her emailzzz!!!"
So hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, you are changing the subject as you've yet to show any kind of evidence to prove any of our rebuttals wrong.
No, no actually you haven't. You showed up with an accusation and we replied with a rebuttal based on hard evidence that not only debunks your claim but also the one in the paper you linked to. You've yet to show any evidence that our rebuttals are wrong.
Furthermore, you are implying that investment was depressed after the 2015 order and boomed after the repeal. Yet you also argue that there is nothing left for them to spend on or invest in. You can't reconcile the two arguments. Especially not since NN proponents have been saying investment is cyclical and is not generally affected by regulations.
Well, that would be a valid comparison if Clinton had admitted she had sent classified email over her server instead of continuing to deny it. She hasn't. ISPs on the other hand have admitted that Title II and net neutrality rules did not and would not affect their investment. Until you can prove they did NOT say that, anything else is just hot air.
Oh Richard, the only hilarious thing here is how desperate you are to save face and avoid admitting you were wrong. But do keep trying.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Aha, Coward shows his Trumper colors.
I'm done here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What, you got nothing so all you can do is make a random, baseless assumption of my political alignment? I can assure you it isn't what you seem to think it is.
Richard Bennett, ladies and gentlemen! The lying, shill of a coward who, when confronted with actual facts, makes a left field assertion pulled out of his delusional fantasies that has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand, claims victory, and then runs away.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reminds me of a prominent national US politician...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Hooton study is invalid for the reasons cited in the study I shared.
The Whataboutism claim that ISPs have told investors that neither the imposition of Title II nor its repeal didn't affect investment are unsupported by the study or even by the blogger claims. In fact, AT&T told investors that Title II does suppress investment:
You kids should know better than to take any Bode post at face value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The comment you are replying to said absolutely nothing about the study or ISP investment, just FYI. Or are you too scared to reply to me anymore?
Irrelevant. ISPs said it did not and would not harm their investment. Either they lied to investors or you are wrong. There is no third choice.
It's not whataboutism if it directly contradicts your argument. Whataboutism is when you try to shift it to something someone else did. In this case, we're still talking about ISPs and their investments, so whataboutism doesn't apply.
And the statements by ISPs that Title II didn't and wouldn't affect their investment directly contradicts the claim that Title II hurt investment, which is the overall point of the paper you cited. Even if Hooton's particular study is flawed, that doesn't mean the overall argument that Title II didn't hurt investment is invalid too, since ISPs admitted as much.
And yet he didn't say it suppressed their investment and instead [said the exact opposite](https://seekingalpha.com/article/3741746-ts-t-ceo-randall -stephenson-presents-ubs-global-media-communications-brokers-conference?part=single).
In addition, in that quote you provided, he said he is basing his thoughts SOLELY on Ajit Pai's writings and comments. First off, basing you position completely on the musings of one single man is a terrible idea. Second, there are MANY other resources he could use to bolster his thoughts on. Third, Pai has an absolute TERRIBLE track record of basing his writings and comments off of faulty data and/or outright lying.
So then, are you saying ISPs are lying to their investors?
And we definitely know better than to believe a single word you say, since I think you've made all of 1 or 2 factual statements in the last year or so that I've been debating you.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]