Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Why Everyone Was Wrong About Net Neutrality
February 26, 2015
Why Everyone Was Wrong About Net Neutrality
By Tim Wu
Tim Wu writes regularly for newyorker.com. He is a professor at Columbia Law School and the director of the Poliak Center for the First Amendment at the Columbia Journalism School.
---snip---
It is often the case in Washington that ideas gain the status of deep truths not because they are actually true, but only because they are repeated often enough. That was the case for another widespread idea: that enacting strong net-neutrality rules would lead to a collapse in the value of broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon. In a May letter, twenty-eight industry C.E.O.s warned of an investment-chilling effect that would destroy millions in market value. And, in fact, fears of such a collapse were a large part of what stopped the F.C.C. from enacting Title II rules in Obamas first term.
Yet the moment that Tom Wheeler announced his plans for strong net-neutrality rules, on February 4th, broadband stocks jumped, and they have stayed buoyant. This has confused experts. Craig Moffett, whom I consider to be the smartest telecom analyst around, was forced to blame the market. I think it just shows you that the market doesnt really understand these issues, he said.
The theory of the wisdom of crowds suggests that the markets have noticed something: the broadband industry hates net neutrality, but its existence has always had a huge and unnoticed upside. Selling broadband is a great business: Moffet has pointed out that the margins are north of ninety-seven per cent. Stated simply, a strong net-neutrality rule locks in the status quo for the most profitable part of the cable industrys business.
Looking to the future, theres one last thing that everyone might be wrong about. The general assumption is that the new rules will be met with fierce and protracted litigation (perhaps decades of it, warn the greatest doomsdayers). Ive said myself that there will be litigation, and it is true that, in our times, most serious regulation is immediately challenged in court, almost as a kind of corporate reflex. Verizon and A.T. & T. have both already threatened to sue. But maybe this prediction is wrong, too.
For one thing, given the jump in stock prices, filing a lawsuit will technically be suing to invalidate rules that seem to have created billions of dollars of shareholder value for the broadband providers. For another, suing the F.C.C. tends to annoy the agency, meaning that you might count out A.T. & T. and Comcast, both of whom have pending mergers before the commission. Sprint has already said that it doesnt mind net-neutrality regulation, and it is hard to imagine a smaller company really wanting to bother. So it probably comes down to whether Verizon or a trade group like the National Cable & Telecommunications Association thinks that it is worth the time, money, and continued uncertainty inherent in trying to knock out the new rules.
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-everyone-was-wrong-about-net-neutrality
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1244 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Everyone Was Wrong About Net Neutrality (Original Post)
KoKo
Feb 2015
OP
Demeter
(85,373 posts)1. the providers are still monopolies--where did they think everyone would go?
They just wanted more profits from charging more for more speed...which would have killed their profits, since most people couldn't afford more, and the deterioration in service would lead them to trash their dreams of internet connectivity.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)2. Are you suggesting that had NN failed ...
people would have stopped using the internet?
It's more likely that the Providers would initially make huge profits, but market forces (i.e., people couldn't afford more, and the deterioration in service) would prove it a bad idea ... and prices would moderate.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)3. American teenagers stopped driving, thanks to the cost
and nobody could have predicted that.
U.S. Teenagers Are Driving Much Less: 4 Theories About Why
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/12/131217-four-theories-why-teens-drive-less-today/
EIA sees slower growth in U.S. miles traveled as more teens shun licenses...U.S. teenagers just aren't as into driving as they used to be, U.S. government forecasters acknowledged Monday in dramatically altered projections for transportation energy use over the next 25 years....Growth in "vehicle-miles traveled" (VMT)that key gauge of America's love affair with the automobile that once reliably ratcheted up year after yearwill slow dramatically, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says in its new Annual Energy Outlook. The EIA slashed its projected annual VMT growth rate to 0.9 percent, a drop of 25 percent compared to its forecast only a year ago.
The change is partly due to slower population growth, but also because of a generational shift confirmed by at least four studies in the past year. In the United States, young people are not only driving less than teens did a generation ago, they aren't even getting licenses....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/12/131217-four-theories-why-teens-drive-less-today/
EIA sees slower growth in U.S. miles traveled as more teens shun licenses...U.S. teenagers just aren't as into driving as they used to be, U.S. government forecasters acknowledged Monday in dramatically altered projections for transportation energy use over the next 25 years....Growth in "vehicle-miles traveled" (VMT)that key gauge of America's love affair with the automobile that once reliably ratcheted up year after yearwill slow dramatically, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says in its new Annual Energy Outlook. The EIA slashed its projected annual VMT growth rate to 0.9 percent, a drop of 25 percent compared to its forecast only a year ago.
The change is partly due to slower population growth, but also because of a generational shift confirmed by at least four studies in the past year. In the United States, young people are not only driving less than teens did a generation ago, they aren't even getting licenses....
Possibly because they can do it all online....