You claimed "telecom stocks actually rallied, suggesting Wall Street wasn't all that worried about the FCC's new rules".
I don't think any particular day's stock prices reflect Wall St reaction to a change in policy; it was anticipated, so some decline was already priced in, and the details weren't given for some weeks after Feb. 26th.
In any case, the stock performance of telecom firms has always been weak compared to the OTT firms like Google and Netflix, because broadband carrier profit margins - ROIC - are a fraction of OTT margins.
Since the day before the FCC’s Title II freakout, CMCSA stock is down from 59.62 to 57.87; VZ is up from 49.20 to 49.57; and AT&T is down from 34.21 to 33.10.
No, the market didn't rally after Title II was imposed. In fact, the day of the announcement all the telecom stocks were down.
VZ was the least affected by the Title II freakout since it is already under some common carrier regs in 700 Mhz.
And no, the mobile networks didn't bid $41B for AWS-3 in order to roll out some tricky new voice service, they bought spectrum for this thing called an Internet.
Most of Silicon Valley is pretty clueless about what think tanks do. This enterprise may be valuable but it's not a think tank.
Similarly, the four "innovation principles" strike me more as organizational values than ideas that have anything to do with innovation, and even at that they're more appropriate to non-profits than to businesses.
Apple is the most innovative company in Silicon Valley and their business model doesn't follow this template at all. Apple is not nearly as much an imitator who depends on incremental improvement as most of today's California and NYC startups are.
There's certainly a place for the 18th social network, the 15th CDN, the 5th SMS alternative, the 100th online tech institute, the Netscape dumpster divers, and the open source alternative to all the other blogging platforms, but it's mostly about serving niches with vertical plays to specialized audiences.
But a Silicon Valley think tank would have to claim to disrupt the traditional mold to gather any eyeballs at all, so there's that. This will be amusing to follow, and with some perseverance and luck it could pivot in a useful direction.
BTW, innovation is about empowering users and improving their quality of life by providing them with novel and valuable products and services; there are many ways to do that.
Right, politicians are all crooked. So why would anyone think city councils are less corrupt than state legislatures, or, God forbid, crony appointees to a federal regulator would be less corrupt than elected officials?
Just trying to make sure I'm being irrational and inconsistent in the approved manner.
This is a good illustration of how Bode in particular and TechDirt in general misleads readers. Bode says: "These twenty or so laws, as we've explored in detail, are written and lobbied for by incumbent ISPs and prohibit towns and cities from deciding for themselves what they should be able to do regarding local telecom infrastructure." Thus, he claims that 20 (or so) state have passed laws protecting private broadband networks at the best of ISP lobbyists. When we look at the "detailed" examination, Bode mentions only one state, Kansas, and claims "more than a dozen states" are protecting ISPs. For reference, he cites a blog written by Jon Brodkin, someone who is actually less credible than Bode. Brodkin simply re-writes a list provided by the ISLR, a consulting company that advises local governments on how to build their own networks.
The fact is that the "more than a dozen" or "twenty or so" laws that restrict local government entry in broadband span a wide range of conditions. Four states require local referenda; these include Colorado and Iowa, two states in which a number of such referenda have passed. Cedar Falls Iowa passed one, and 6 of 7 Colorado cities passed such referenda in November. So these laws aren't protecting capitalist firms as much as they're protecting tax payers.
In five other states, laws simply give current operators the right of first refusal for new networks, and six states have laws requiring public hearings, feasibility studies or written business plans, things that should be done anyway.
In other words, the article is false and misleading from the title all the way through to the last word, and it's only purpose is to raise your ire by making you believe a conservative Congressman in the pocket of the ISPs is out to deprive you of your freedom. And to keep you coming back for more manufactured outrage.
Any law we don't like is passed by lobbyists, and any law we do like is passed by appointed shills at the FCC.
Nope, Prop 13 was a voter initiative on runaway taxes. It also requires cities to hold referenda before building schools and libraries.
According to TechDirt, broadband TV, phone, and Internet networks should not have to jump the same hurdles that all other debt issues face. Because, you know, the Internet is more special than phone networks, even though it has to be regulated as if it were a phone network because Comcast has bad customer service.
After five phone calls to the government to register a new car today I'm reminded that government's customer service is much worse.
OK, muni broadband does struggle to survive, that's why Google was able to buy iProvo for a buck, Lafayette is drowning in red ink, and Cedar Falls had its bond rating downgraded.
Thanks for pointing that out.
BTW, California doesn't permit muni builds without a referendum because of Prop 13, passed in 1978 in a statewide referendum. Clearly, the majority of California voters are cable lobbyists.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TWC: Pot calling the kettle black
First, those are advertised speeds, not actual ones. In the UK, there's a large gap between advertised and actual, but in the US there isn't. The SamKnows tests commissioned by Ofcom and the FCC prove this.
Second, you're comparing one city to one city, which only has meaning for those two cities. If you want to compare policy models, you need to look at the databases for entire countries, such as Akamai and Cisco.
Third, you may or may not have caps in the UK, but in either case the amount of data transferred by the typical UK user is less than half the volume the typical American transfers. This reduces ISP cost in the UK.
Fourth, UK cities are more densely populated than US cities, so the costs of providing service are lower still in the UK.
The bottom line is that more Americans have access to speeds greater than 25 Mbps than do Britons, as a percentage of population. And yes, Americans do pay more for higher speeds, but that's largely because we can get them without building our own networks as they must do in rural Britain.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TWC: Pot calling the kettle black
You'll have to explain if you think UK broadband is faster than US, because my data don't show any such thing.
Together, BT, Sky, and Talk Talk have 90% of the UK DSL market,and it's all day same DSLAMs so that's nothing price competition. BT has asked Ofcom for a regulatory holiday for fiber, and they're not going to build without it.
There are lots of stories about this town and that county and this little country, but they don't add up to an actual analysis.
There's also no reason to be sad about the fact that some former Soviet bloc nations who never had cable or even decent telephone networks are finally getting their act together and installing some modern networks that use fiber, as everyone does in new networks today. But if you look closely you'll find the each of these networks is fast when it's brand new and has few users, but gets progressively slower as more people sign up and begin to actually use it. The quarterly Akamai measurements show this pattern in spades.
You're basically whining about US broadband because you're been wound up by blogs going after clicks with alarming headlines.
On the post: Despite Claims Title II Will Kill Investment, Comcast Launches Major New 2 Gigabit Deployment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25
It's actually too early to measure the impact of the White House's regulatory overreach just yet, frankly. That's what journalists are saying.
On the post: Despite Claims Title II Will Kill Investment, Comcast Launches Major New 2 Gigabit Deployment
Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25
You can't believe everything you hear on the Daily Show.
On the post: Despite Claims Title II Will Kill Investment, Comcast Launches Major New 2 Gigabit Deployment
Re: Re: Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25
I don't think any particular day's stock prices reflect Wall St reaction to a change in policy; it was anticipated, so some decline was already priced in, and the details weren't given for some weeks after Feb. 26th.
In any case, the stock performance of telecom firms has always been weak compared to the OTT firms like Google and Netflix, because broadband carrier profit margins - ROIC - are a fraction of OTT margins.
On the post: Despite Claims Title II Will Kill Investment, Comcast Launches Major New 2 Gigabit Deployment
Telecom stocks are down since Feb. 25
No, the market didn't rally after Title II was imposed. In fact, the day of the announcement all the telecom stocks were down.
VZ was the least affected by the Title II freakout since it is already under some common carrier regs in 700 Mhz.
And no, the mobile networks didn't bid $41B for AWS-3 in order to roll out some tricky new voice service, they bought spectrum for this thing called an Internet.
On the post: Announcing The Copia Institute: A New Business Network & Think Tank Exploring Ideas In Abundance
Think tanks and innovation
Similarly, the four "innovation principles" strike me more as organizational values than ideas that have anything to do with innovation, and even at that they're more appropriate to non-profits than to businesses.
Apple is the most innovative company in Silicon Valley and their business model doesn't follow this template at all. Apple is not nearly as much an imitator who depends on incremental improvement as most of today's California and NYC startups are.
There's certainly a place for the 18th social network, the 15th CDN, the 5th SMS alternative, the 100th online tech institute, the Netscape dumpster divers, and the open source alternative to all the other blogging platforms, but it's mostly about serving niches with vertical plays to specialized audiences.
But a Silicon Valley think tank would have to claim to disrupt the traditional mold to gather any eyeballs at all, so there's that. This will be amusing to follow, and with some perseverance and luck it could pivot in a useful direction.
BTW, innovation is about empowering users and improving their quality of life by providing them with novel and valuable products and services; there are many ways to do that.
On the post: Marsha Blackburn Rushes To The Defense Of Awful, Protectionist State Broadband Laws
Re: Re: Re: Completely unrelated I'm sure...
Just trying to make sure I'm being irrational and inconsistent in the approved manner.
On the post: Marsha Blackburn Rushes To The Defense Of Awful, Protectionist State Broadband Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As it does
The fact is that the "more than a dozen" or "twenty or so" laws that restrict local government entry in broadband span a wide range of conditions. Four states require local referenda; these include Colorado and Iowa, two states in which a number of such referenda have passed. Cedar Falls Iowa passed one, and 6 of 7 Colorado cities passed such referenda in November. So these laws aren't protecting capitalist firms as much as they're protecting tax payers.
In five other states, laws simply give current operators the right of first refusal for new networks, and six states have laws requiring public hearings, feasibility studies or written business plans, things that should be done anyway.
In other words, the article is false and misleading from the title all the way through to the last word, and it's only purpose is to raise your ire by making you believe a conservative Congressman in the pocket of the ISPs is out to deprive you of your freedom. And to keep you coming back for more manufactured outrage.
Any law we don't like is passed by lobbyists, and any law we do like is passed by appointed shills at the FCC.
Isn't democracy grand?
On the post: Marsha Blackburn Rushes To The Defense Of Awful, Protectionist State Broadband Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: As it does
That may not come through clearly because of Bode's trolling.
On the post: Marsha Blackburn Rushes To The Defense Of Awful, Protectionist State Broadband Laws
Re: Re: As it does
According to TechDirt, broadband TV, phone, and Internet networks should not have to jump the same hurdles that all other debt issues face. Because, you know, the Internet is more special than phone networks, even though it has to be regulated as if it were a phone network because Comcast has bad customer service.
After five phone calls to the government to register a new car today I'm reminded that government's customer service is much worse.
On the post: Marsha Blackburn Rushes To The Defense Of Awful, Protectionist State Broadband Laws
As it does
Thanks for pointing that out.
BTW, California doesn't permit muni builds without a referendum because of Prop 13, passed in 1978 in a statewide referendum. Clearly, the majority of California voters are cable lobbyists.
On the post: More Evidence Revealed Of Hollywood's Chummy Relationship With State Attorney General... Even As He Plays Dumb
...and on the other hand...
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TWC: Pot calling the kettle black
This is from an iPhone.
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TWC: Pot calling the kettle black
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Can the BS
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TWC: Pot calling the kettle black
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TWC: Pot calling the kettle black
Second, you're comparing one city to one city, which only has meaning for those two cities. If you want to compare policy models, you need to look at the databases for entire countries, such as Akamai and Cisco.
Third, you may or may not have caps in the UK, but in either case the amount of data transferred by the typical UK user is less than half the volume the typical American transfers. This reduces ISP cost in the UK.
Fourth, UK cities are more densely populated than US cities, so the costs of providing service are lower still in the UK.
The bottom line is that more Americans have access to speeds greater than 25 Mbps than do Britons, as a percentage of population. And yes, Americans do pay more for higher speeds, but that's largely because we can get them without building our own networks as they must do in rural Britain.
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TWC: Pot calling the kettle black
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TWC: Pot calling the kettle black
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TWC: Pot calling the kettle black
Together, BT, Sky, and Talk Talk have 90% of the UK DSL market,and it's all day same DSLAMs so that's nothing price competition. BT has asked Ofcom for a regulatory holiday for fiber, and they're not going to build without it.
On the post: The Broadband Industry Pretends To Be Worried About Your Soaring Bill In Attempt To Undermine Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: TWC: Pot calling the kettle black
There's also no reason to be sad about the fact that some former Soviet bloc nations who never had cable or even decent telephone networks are finally getting their act together and installing some modern networks that use fiber, as everyone does in new networks today. But if you look closely you'll find the each of these networks is fast when it's brand new and has few users, but gets progressively slower as more people sign up and begin to actually use it. The quarterly Akamai measurements show this pattern in spades.
You're basically whining about US broadband because you're been wound up by blogs going after clicks with alarming headlines.
Next >>