It's funny to see the net neutrality people giving ISOC the treatment formerly reserved for ISPs thought to be secretly violating unwritten rules. These people only have one gear: total freakout.
Selling off PIR is actually a good move for ISOC and for the Internet. It's conflict of interest for the sponsor of the Internet standards process to be involved in the domain registry business, and this deal ends it.
The Internet's design is too dependent on bureaucratic administration of names and numbers, and now that ISOC is insulated from dependence on this poor design it can perhaps be more constructive in moving past it.
In our view the Commission’s reliance on, and analysis of, the Singer study are reasonable. First, it is but one of numerous studies and trends invoked by the Commission that reached similar conclusions—about which Petitioners say relatively little or nothing specific. These include (1) a study finding that “ISP capital investment increased each year from the end of the recession in 2009 until 2014, when it peaked,” 2018 Order ¶ 90 & n.335; see IA Br. 20–21 (questioning trends in these data); (2) another reporting that wireless capital investment had slowed, with a “precipitous decline in 2016,” id. ¶ 90 n.337; and (3) an article, Thomas W. Hazlett & Joshua D. Wright, The Effect of Regulation on Broadband Markets: Evaluating the Empirical Evidence in the FCC’s 2015 ‘Open Internet’ Order, 50 Rev. Indus. Org. 487 (2017), uncontroverted by Petitioners, on which the Commission drew extensively, see 2018 Order ¶¶ 94 & n.349, 96 & n.358, 98 & n.362, 107, 148 & nn.535– 536. This study relied in part on a “natural experiment” derived from Commission policy changes, showing a “statistically significant upward shift in DSL (Digital Subscriber Line)” investment after the FCC reclassified DSL service as an “information service” in 2005. Id. ¶ 94 DC Circuit opinion in Mozilla v. FCC, pp 76-77
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:
In terms of regulatory, in terms of what to expect, all I can base my thoughts on, John, are Ajit Pai’s writings and his comments. And he obviously was not a fan of the Title II regulation that was imposed on the industry. He felt like it had gone entirely too far; we obviously tend to agree with him on that. We happen to be advocates of net neutrality, just the concept of neutrality but placing utility style regulation on our mobility and internet businesses. There is no way anybody can argue that that is not suppressive to investment.
And so, we’re hopeful that Chairman Pai will come in and begin to address some of these issues that are suppressing capital investment. We're also optimistic that he would begin to rationalize some of the regulatory oversight, areas where -- like on privacy. We have two layers of regulation on privacy in this industry, in a world we’re moving into media and entertainment and content. The ability to have predictability and understand who oversees the privacy rules and who sets those rules, and so bringing some clarity to that, it just will be very, very helpful to clear the underbrush of regulation, bring clarity and some level of predictability to the regulatory environment. So, we're optimistic in terms of what Chairman Pai would bring to the industry.
You kids should know better than to take any Bode post at face value.
Economists call this a "but for" analysis. Go look that up.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The order in question deals with something called the "open Internet," which presumably contrasts with a previous "closed Internet." There's really nothing in this order about a "neutral Internet" as it allows all sorts of shenanigans in the name of "Non-BIAS Data Services."
Try reading it some time, it's now a historical document without any force of law but the logic is pretty hilarious.
On the post: Mozilla, Consumer Groups Petition For Rehearing of Net Neutrality Case
Re: Re:
It's good to know that I'm inside your head.
On the post: Mozilla, Consumer Groups Petition For Rehearing of Net Neutrality Case
Fake comment
This Techdirt reader is pretending to be me. This is how the TD community rolls, isn't it?
On the post: The Sketchy, Sketchy Case Of ICANN Execs And Self-Dealing Regarding The .Org Domain
ISOC gets the net neutrality treatment
It's funny to see the net neutrality people giving ISOC the treatment formerly reserved for ISPs thought to be secretly violating unwritten rules. These people only have one gear: total freakout.
Selling off PIR is actually a good move for ISOC and for the Internet. It's conflict of interest for the sponsor of the Internet standards process to be involved in the domain registry business, and this deal ends it.
The Internet's design is too dependent on bureaucratic administration of names and numbers, and now that ISOC is insulated from dependence on this poor design it can perhaps be more constructive in moving past it.
On the post: Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
DC Circuit Court begs to differ.
LOL!
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
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.
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL!
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
Re: Re:
Aha, Coward shows his Trumper colors.
I'm done here.
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
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.
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
Fail.
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
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.
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
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.
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
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.
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
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.
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
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.
On the post: Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment
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.
On the post: Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, "open Internet" is not shorthand for "net neutrality", that was explained in the chairman's statement attached to the 2010 open Internet order.
On the post: Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The order in question deals with something called the "open Internet," which presumably contrasts with a previous "closed Internet." There's really nothing in this order about a "neutral Internet" as it allows all sorts of shenanigans in the name of "Non-BIAS Data Services."
Try reading it some time, it's now a historical document without any force of law but the logic is pretty hilarious.
On the post: Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Section II does not mention net neutrality.
On the post: Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kindly tell me which paragraphs of that rather long document define net neutrality if you please.
On the post: Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Title II hampered investment. I'm not confident defining net neutrality as it appears to mean whatever you want it to mean.
Next >>