[opendtv] Re: It's Now Clear None of the Supposed Benefits of Killing Net Neutrality Are Real
- From: "Craig Birkmaier" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "brewmastercraig" for DMARC)
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 16:16:03 -0500
On Jan 27, 2019, at 9:50 AM, Monty Solomon <monty@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's Now Clear None of the Supposed Benefits of Killing Net Neutrality Are
Real
Network investment is down, layoffs abound, and networks are falling apart.
This isn’t the glorious future Ajit Pai promised.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gyab5m/its-now-clear-none-of-the-supposed-benefits-of-killing-net-neutrality-are-real
What financial benefits were promised either FOR Title II Net Neutrality, or
due to the repeal of it?
The Net Neutrality crowd never promised that FCC regulation of the Internet
would save anyone a dime. What was expected, was what always happens when the
regulators get involved:
1. Increased costs to all levels of market participants to play the game - i.e.
more lawyers filing more mountains of paperwork, and more lobbyists to navigate
the local, state and Federal regulatory regime.
2. Attempts to regulate the Internet middlemen, and set interconnection rates.
3. Attempts to regulate/eliminate services that save consumers money - i.e.
Zero Rating benefits passed along to customers.
Then there is this rather lame attempt to prove that repealing net neutrality
is decreasing investment in broadband networks...
According to analysis this week by Wall Street research firm
MoffettNathanson, capital spending among the nation’s four biggest cable
providers (Altice, Comcast, Charter Spectrum, CableONE) is expected to
decline upwards of 5.8 percent this year.
These are the main companies that benefitted from the Title II Net neutrality
rules, which essentially turned them into another regulated “natural monopoly.”
As Bert points pout ad nausea, these guys have the best pipes and virtually no
local competition - it’s not true, but they do currently have a near monopoly
on fixed broadband.
The real question is why they need to keep investing in these networks, as they
now provide up to 1 Gbps service?
And then there is Verizon, which is unloading 10,000 legacy employees that are
costing, not making them money. Among these are the legions of unionized
linesmen that are no longer needed to maintain the legacy copper plants, and
are far to expensive, not to mention untrained, to install the next generation
5G networks that will be deployed in the next decade, as the standards and
equipment mature.
The reality is that most of the major investments will not begin until 2020 or
later.
Arguing about “intent” when it comes to the politicians and regulators is a
fools errand, as we are seeing now with the border issues. The intent of the
Title II decision was well disguised - it was about tying up the network
providers with mountains of regulatory red tape, while a handful of politically
favored edge providers entrenched their monopolies over the services that
produce billions is revenues, while promoting one political party and blocking
and throttling the other...
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
