Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality
from the learning-nothing-from-history dept
I've talked a lot about how the Trump net neutrality repeal was a massive con. It effectively gutted the FCC's consumer protection oversight at telecom monopoly behest, then tried to ban states from being able to protect US consumers as well. Worse, it was based on a bunch of absolute bullshit about how doing this would spur network investment, create jobs, and result in amazing new innovation. All propped up by bad data and fake and dead people hired by the telecom industry. It was a massive ploy to further obliterate meaningful oversight of predatory, widely disliked regional telecom monopolies under the guise of progress.
And it worked flawlessly. None of the promised benefits materialized, but the industry got everything it wanted, namely: regulators too enfeebled to do much about US telecom market failure, high prices, and limited competition. Worse perhaps, the dumb gambit was all propped up by a select number of experts and press outlets that appear to have learned absolutely nothing from the experience.
Like Axios, for example. As we recently noted, Biden's executive order prods the FCC to restore net neutrality and the agency's Title II authority over broadband providers. The FCC can't do this until the Biden administration gets around to actually staffing the FCC. The simple act of appointing and seating a new agency boss alone could take much of this year, so any real action on more contentious issues like net neutrality likely won't happen for some time.
But the telecom industry is getting a running start undermining such efforts by trotting out the same nonsensical talking points they've been using for fifteen years. And they're getting the inadvertent (?) help of outlets like Axios, which this week parroted a long list of false industry claims verbatim without even bothering to fact check them. Such as the idea that Trump regulators engaged in "light touch" regulation (aka: letting AT&T do whatever the fuck it wants), which frames doing anything other than that as something heavy handed.
Then there's this utterly false Axios claim from unnamed "industry leaders" that net neutrality harms network investment:
"Industry leaders fear net neutrality rules will pave the way for the government to set broadband prices and have argued that the rules deter investment in the sector."
First, the US government is terrified of seriously regulating broadband prices. It's treated as the most radical policy proposal possible by the majority of both campaign-cash slathered parties. I doubt even under the most progressive of potential Biden appointments would the FCC seriously regulate broadband rates. Even when the agency has expanded consumer protection rules (like net neutrality), they've gone to comical lengths to avoid treating broadband like a utility or regulating prices (see: the forbearance language in the 2015 net neutrality order). The threat of this happening has been used by industry for scare-mongering purposes for 25 years, yet it never materializes, even if treating broadband more like a utility might make sense given broadband's essential nature (see: Covid).
Second, it takes about sixty seconds of research to find that the claim that "net neutrality hurt broadband investment" was never actually true. Yes, AT&T, Comcast, and friends claimed that net neutrality rules hampered investment, but there are several different studies now showing how that claim was absolutely false. And ample earnings reports, SEC filings, and other data showcasing how AT&T and others cut network investment in the wake of the repeal. There's even a long list of industry CEOs on the public record making it very clear net neutrality didn't impact investment.
If you're a reporter and you you feel the need to give an industry lobbyist ample room to make various claims, you should at least point out where that lobbyist might not be telling the truth so your readers have some vague idea where the truth actually is. But Axios doesn't do that. Instead, it lets former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Mike Powell make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims about what net neutrality is (or isn't): :
"Net neutrality has become an expensive, time-wasting exercise that has little real world effect," Michael Powell, president of cable trade group NCTA, said in a statement. "The drama detracts from focusing on genuine broadband issues, most critically our collective effort to get broadband to communities that lack service."
Again, the "real world effect" was that the FCC was left largely powerless to protect consumers right before a pandemic struck and gave everybody a painful crash course on the importance of broadband. The "real world effect" was that the repeal left federal and state regulators less prepared to rein in billing fraud (like bogus fees) and other harms of mindless monopolization (aka limited competition). And the "real world effect" was that with neither competition nor regulatory oversight to constrain them, regional telecom monopolies doubled down on shitty behavior, price hikes, and layoffs just as most folks predicted.
Axios proceeds to quote a Powell claim (again unchallenged) that doing anything other than letting AT&T dictate all federal telecom policy is doomed to failure:
"Of course, we can all suit up to play another game of ping pong, with yet another administration, but the inevitable years-long regulatory proceeding, exhaustive court challenges and likely trip to the U.S. Supreme Court some three or four years from now serves no one."
Yes, ideally you'd want Congress passing a net neutrality law to prevent the wobbling back and forth of the FCC as it shifts between parties. But because the US Congress is a corrupt mess in thrall to telecom monopolies, that's not happening anytime soon. And yes, the FCC restoring its consumer protection authority might run face-first into a rightward-lurching Supreme Court, but your alternative is to simply not try to do anything to fix this corrupt dysfunction, which is certainly AT&T and Comcast's preferred endgame.
Again, the net neutrality repeal didn't just kill "net neutrality rules," it gutted the FCC's consumer protection authority and tried to ban states from filling the consumer protection void. And again, the repeal involved a whole lot of dodgy data and outright fraud on the part of the telecom lobby. A reader walks away from the Axios piece understanding exactly none of that. The entire piece is a perfect example of the problem with "view from nowhere" or "he said, she said" journalism, where the truth gets lost somewhere amidst efforts to create the kind of bland, illusory balance that won't offend sources or advertisers.
You'd like to think the press learned a little something from the net neutrality repeal and the last four years of Trumpism, but as the net neutrality (read: basic oversight for regional telecom monopolies) debate heats up once again, there's already ample evidence that's simply not the case.
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: broadband, competition, fcc, net neutrality, regulation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
""Industry leaders fear net neutrality rules will pave the way for the government to set broadband prices"
If you don't know what net neutrality is or what it does, I suppose it makes sense.
""Net neutrality has become an expensive, time-wasting exercise that has little real world effect,""
Weird, it's the default setting outside of the US, and we have cheaper, better internet access than you do.
As with healthcare debates, I'm sure someone will be along soon to explain why better service at cheaper prices with more freedom to move around and less hidden charges is awful for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: healthcare
Really Paul.
Can't you imagine how much better telehealth and remote surgery could be if only advertisements could be inserted into the medical data stream of live surgery? AI and ML could be real-time analysing your online ECG and either suggesting what expensive treatments are available, or serving up the names of local Funeral Directors, or worthless life-insurance policies. It's Un-American anti-freedom socialist universal-healthcare wowserism that's driving the US economy into the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: healthcare
I'm sure that the utopia you describe would be amazing, but alas I'm stuck here with pesky publicly funded healthcare. I only have the ability to access quality healthcare with no risk of financial ruin, topped up by by employer provided private healthcare. I might even encounter a situation where an actual doctor performs triage and I can't use either method to push to the front of the queue because both have restrictions on resources.
Truly a nightmare, and don't get me started on my 1Gbps fibre connection that costs me less than $100/month with mobile and TV included..
I'm sure someone out there will be taking this without the required /s...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: healthcare
"...if only advertisements could be inserted into the medical data stream of live surgery?"
You think small, friend. Imagine the suture for your appendectomy being the embroidery of the Nike or Coca-cola logo. Your lasik surgery now leaves a faint image of the L'Oreal logo overlaying your vision and your vasectomy now comes with a cute lasered-in Durex Big Boy ad over the entry scar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link to article
Since this article didn't provide the link, here is the original article on Axios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if someone from Axios will read this article and take a deeper look at the net neutrality issue and not just defend their skewed viewpoint. If they are as into journalistic integrity as they claim...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ironically "Axios" is Greek for "worthy", when this article is anything but.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look, clearly net neutrality is a horrible thing that should not be allowed. I mean, just look at all the dead people who submitted comments against it, trying to save us from beyond the grave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like Eric Draven?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only if Eric tried to stop T-Bird and his gang with an online comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But all the dead people voted for Biden, so we can't really trust them can we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, to be fair, all of the dead people that wanted to vote for Trump had their ballots catch on fire because of where they are...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe They Did
One of the important takeaways from Trump's time is that credibility matters. And just as how the corrupt media got wrecked in 2016, so did Net Neutrality proponents when they did their chicken little prediction back in 2017. Perhaps Axios' article isn't the best. But it sure is better than the predictions that the internet would break if the government repealed net neutrality. So let there be a competing viewpoint. Competition is good, and it might earn Axios some credibility if their prediction is better than the others. Give neutral reporting viewpoints a chance, and let readers decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe They Did
I, uh, think you missed that the internet didn't break because of all the state-level laws and AG threatening to regulate the telecom monopolies since Ajit Pai disbanded the rules and the FCC's authority to enforce them, meaning the telecoms were on their best behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe They Did
"One of the important takeaways from Trump's time is that credibility matters"
Wow...
I mean, we knew you were ignorant of reality, but I at least didn't know how bad your delusions were.
"But it sure is better than the predictions that the internet would break if the government repealed net neutrality."
The predictions were not that it would break completely, the predictions were that you would continue to get fleeced for lower quality service while major conglomerates with interests outside of the ISP space would use their ability to lock out and destroy competing services.
"So let there be a competing viewpoint"
There is, you're just too dumb to understand that you support the system that stifles it. Where I live, I have net neutrality, real choice, lower prices and more freedom than you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe They Did
'Credibility matters', says the person who has given his unquestioning support to a lying, cheating, philandering con man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe They Did
And yet, he still has greater credibility than the corrupt media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
In your world, sure, I'm just glad the rest of us don't live somewhere that aggressively stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
If you give Trump credibility even though he is a self professed liar, cheater and grifter; why should anyone listen to you then? You just confessed to liking those characteristics which mean anything you say or do are suspect since you lack the ability to make rational choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
I don't like those characteristics. I'm just saying he has greater credibility than the corrupt media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
But you'll herniate your own back just to defend the man who holds onto them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
So an abusive, venal, doddering, womanizing early stage alzheimer buffoon with a bad hairdo who can't even understand what direction a fleet is sailing is more cridibly than all the variaous media outlets who report on and expose the Alt-right lies. In your judgment, Trump is more credible and less corrupt than the Washington Post, right?
Remind me never to ask you for advice on anything that requires judgement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
^^^^ The sad thing here is, despite all the orange grifter bashing in response, not undeserved mind you, is that they may not be that far off the mark.
News as a vehicle for advertising isn't new, same for being at some points entertainment but what is new is that those two are now at the forefront if not the only function of most outlets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
Please provide at least two valid examples of corrupt media. Pointing your finger at some given news outlet as a general example will not suffice.
IOW, "pics, or it didn't happen".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
Remember he is claiming they lost credibility in 2017. So its the same mix of "Russia Hoax" (What the hoax is being a shifting set of goalposts), "Trump didn't cause WW3" (Missing that concerns were about the means, not the ends), and "the unite the right rally was actually peaceful and the person who got hit by a car had a simultaneous heart attack unrelated to being mowed down by a car in that moment" (Which rests on defining the rally as only the parts where anti-semitism, racism, or violence weren't happening). So lots of propeganda and lies from Koby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
I actually saw an online commenter refer to this in passing. Claimed that the car was attacked by the crowd then struck the victim when trying to escape, in a panic. Despite copious online video showing the events happened in the exact opposite order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
Kind of similar to when Koby called Jan 6 a "kerfuffle" even though there is ample evidence, video and testimonial, that it was a violent attempt to overthrow the process of validating Trump's major loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
The right wing are currently in the process of trying to pretend that the cop who was bludgeoned didn't die as a result of his injuries, but of a totally unrelated illness the following day, while the woman who was shot was a poor innocent victim who was just wandering round the place like any tourist would. They also claim that Chauvin is an innocent political prisoner because George Floyd died of unrelated drug overdose, and that cities actually burned to the ground last year but no BLM activists have ever been arrested. Not to mention their fantasies about vaccines and who is really dying due to COVID.
We're at the point where actual documented reality won't sway these people. I'm not sure what the next step is, I'm just glad I'm nowhere near them personally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
"The right wing are currently in the process of building themselves into the well-worn template of militant and political faction dedicated to politics by violence."*
Hope you don't mind if I FTFY, PaulIT.
The current GOP looks like the Sinn Fein of olden days. The politicians willing to exculpate, downplay, cover up and fundraise for the ones with guns and bombs.
Youtube search; "Beau of the fifth column pelosi veto".
I think what we're seeing is the early days of emergent organized domestic terrorism. The only thing casting that in doubt might be the sheer stupidity and reality denial of most of the recruiting base. ISIS couldn't have grown to size in a nation with any form of law enforcement, after all.
Yet again that doubt depends largely on significant parts of law enforcement not being sympathizers as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
How about anything broadcast on Fox News and AO? Just choose any clip at random, you're bound to see something dodgy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
Don't let Fox News hear that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
You're funny in a sad, pathetic kind of way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
"And yet, he still has greater credibility than the corrupt media."
Yeah, Fox news and OANN sure did break the bar. When their most popular hosts have to stand in front of a judge and claim their whole show was parody no sane person could take seriously that surely should have sunk their credibility.
As for just about every other news agency not willing to engage in reality denial, no. Trump still holds the title of greatest liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
No, I still trust Fox News more than I trust Trump. OAN, no, but Fox is more likely to have a stopped-clock moment than Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
"No, I still trust Fox News more than I trust Trump."
That's...not a high bar to clear. I mean if Trump never has a stopped clock moment but Fox is right twice a day, metaphorically...that still puts both of them in the "liar, liar, pants on fire" category with miles to spare.
Also, it's unfair to claim trump was never right.
When he campaigned in Ohio he wondered out loud how stupid the people in Ohio were. And they proved him right by voting for him.
He was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall and let's be fair; If he'd managed to make the pandemic just a little worse on the US side, Mexico would gladly have built that wall.
And if he'd shot someone on fifth avenue none of his voter base would have disagreed with Dear Leader's personal interpretation of the ermächtigungsgesetz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
"If he'd managed to make the pandemic just a little worse on the US side, Mexico would gladly have built that wall."
I doubt it. Mexico would have a far greater understanding of why the whole thing was idiotic and would presumably put more meaningful measures in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe They Did
“One of the important takeaways from Trump's time is that credibility matters.”
The 600 series had a rubberery cadence. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They sound human...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF...
So I quickly read the headline and my immediate reaction is "what the heck does a space company have to do with net neutrality..."
Then I see it's "Axios", not "Axiom". Doh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember kids, offer no pushback when the right does something that makes life worse for you, because any repeal of their bad policy could be repealed. Just roll over and show your belly, they surely won't be emboldened and keep pushing worse policies until their own policies of previous years are decried as dangerous socialism when proposed as compromises. Thanks, Axios!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Easy mistake. Axiom are the space company. Axios are the news organisation most recently memeably famous for the WTF look on the face of the guy interviewing Trump where he boasted about aceing a test meant to detect early signs of dementia as if it was a massive accomplishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahh, remember the good old days?
As a sufficiently-grey hair, I remember when the airline industry was regulated. What happened is the airlines competed on amenities and service.
Now, imagine if the ISP industry was regulated:
Thus the ISPs would be all on a level playing field, more or less. What to do? Complete on amenities and service.
...but that would cut into their obscene profits. And temporarily mess with their stock. And make baby Jesus cry (probably).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahh, remember the good old days?
"Now, imagine if the ISP industry was regulated"
You don't have to imagine, you just have to look at how they operate in the many countries where they are effectively regulated. Countries which, generally speaking, have more choice, lower prices and fewer hidden costs, and often don't even have bandwidth caps and other limits (on non-mobile connections at least).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
innocuous leader
because the input here is censored
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: innocuous leader
Can the Biden Administration Censor the Internet Through Private Companies?
https://www.activistpost.com/2021/07/can-the-biden-administration-censor-the-internet-thr ough-private-companies.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: innocuous leader
First rule of headlines that pose a yes-or-no question: the answer is usually no. This is no exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: innocuous leader
I'm getting hungry! Clicking over TWO hundred times is hard work!
Why do you make your system so difficult to use, Maz? You must be doing yourself lots of "collateral damage"!
And key flaw is your site is too small: ALL comments are seen. Then that your own piece is totally locked down is just sign of how weak you are!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: innocuous leader
Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relevant to next Maz piece, which is locked down!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-can-win-his-case-against-tech-giants-11626025357
Biden Administration Completely Kills The "It's A Private Company So It's Not Censorship" Argument
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/07/16/biden-administration-completely-kills-the-its-a-pri vate-company-so-its-not-censorship-argument/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Relevant to next Maz piece, which is locked down!
I'd ask you to stop making spam, but that would be as about as effective if I were to ask Hormel the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Relevant to next Maz piece, which is locked down!
The best part is Mike could turn off the lights and become a n internationally renowned professional shark wrangler and it would be months before blue balls had the slightest suspicion something was amiss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps Biden received campaign contributions and cant therefore be seen to want to change things that take any clout away from the companies concerned?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's also innately pro-business in a pro-corporate Delaware sort of way. Campaign slush would likely not matter here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AKA this language:
Section 201:
Section 202:
(Section 208 outli es the process of filing a complaint with the FCC)
Other sections:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIght for all the wrong reasons
The part I find the funniest is that industry stooge Powell is correct in what he's saying, just not in the way he thinks he is or wants people to think he is.
The network neutrality 'debate' has been an expensive, dragged our process because the industry he serves throws fits over any regulations they haven't written, but that's entirely on them refusing to accept that there might be any limits to how badly they can fleece the public.
Likewise if price regulations are even possibly on the table(they almost certainly aren't) that's probably because the companies involved have shown themselves to be so eager and quick to rip off their captive customers that regulating how badly they can do that starts to look like a reasonable choice if the government won't regulate them directly.
To the extent that the problems he list exist they are entirely due to the industry he's cheering on which makes him using them to argue that regulations are absolutely not necessary beyond rich.
As for Axios a pity but I guess another 'news' outlet has decided to turn PR firm, just posting whatever the hell someone hands them without question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]