1. Monthly archive
  2. May 2017

May 2017

These are the arguments against net neutrality — and why they’re wrong

1. Title II is a depression-era rule intended for regulating the AT&T/Ma Bell monopoly. TL;DR: A law from another time, yes, but a strong one that’s been updated

2. The 1996 Telecommunications act says the internet should be unfettered by state or federal regulation. TL;DR: It was “fettered” for years and did great — plus, that part of the law isn’t law, and it’s about porn

3. The rules have discouraged investment. TL;DR: No company claims this and the numbers are inconclusive at best

4. It stifles small businesses with reporting and restrictions. TL;DR: Potentially, but there are already allowances for this

5. The “general conduct rule” is vague and open-ended. TL;DR: So change it

6. We’re not trying to remove net neutrality rules, just Title II. TL;DR: Removing the rules is literally in the proposal

7. The rules work without Title II anyway. TL;DR: Nope, we tried this already

8. The internet wasn’t broken before 2015 and ISPs don’t block or throttle. TL;DR: It remained unbroken because of constant vigilance, not because ISPs didn’t try

Reclassification and Investment: An Analysis of Free Press’ “It’s Working” Report

Free Press recently released a report on the capital expenditures of broadband service providers entitled, It’s Working: How the Internet Access and Online Video Markets are Thriving in the Title II Era. The Free Press Report, authored by S. Derek Turner, claims that capital spending by Broadband Service Providers (“BSPs”) “accelerated” following the Federal Communications Commission’s reclassification of broadband Internet access connections as a Title II common carrier telecommunications service in its 2015 Open Internet Order, increasing by 5.3 percent between 2013-2014 and 2015-2016. The Internet Alliance, a trade group representing the interests of companies supporting reclassification, appears to use the Free Press’ data to support the same claim.

Free Press’ analysis, as usual, fails to meet the most basic of professional standards, and involves nothing more than the adding up of nominal total capital expenditures for a sample of BSPs and comparing the sums between two periods. Such simple-minded analysis is incapable of measuring the effect of a policy change. The relevant question is not whether capital spending rises or falls in any given year or pair of years, but whether such expenditures are below the levels they would have been “but for” the regulatory intervention. To answer that question, we need a counterfactual. That is, if absent a regulatory intervention capital spending was scheduled to rise by 10 percent next year (the counterfactual), but rises by only 5 percent due to an intervention, the intervention reduces investment despite the fact expenditures were higher. Unlike recent research finding sizable harmful effects from reclassification, the Free Press Report offers no counterfactual, so their Report adds nothing serious to the analysis of Net Neutrality and reclassification.

Senators Seek Hearing on Fake News, Trump Media Hostility

Sens Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Tom Udall (D-NM) have asked the Senate Commerce Committee to hold a hearing on the state of the media.

The senators cited Trump Administration hostility toward the press, plus the proliferation of "fake news," for wanting the committee to hold the hearing—they said the last committee hearing on the state of journalism was in 2009 and that a new look was needed to "refresh the record."

“The journalism industry is grappling with a changing media landscape: from the changing dynamics of how people access news, to changing financial calculations, to the proliferation of so-called ‘fake news’ (both actual disinformation campaigns and the use of the term to slander legitimate news reporting), to a challenging relationship between news media and the Executive branch,” the senators wrote in a letter to Chairman John Thune (R-SD) and Ranking Member Bill Nelson (D-FL) “There have been a series of recent incidents in which hostility has been exercised against members of the press by members of the Administration, including just last week when a reporter was allegedly manhandled and threatened by security guards after a news conference at the Federal Communications Commission headquarters.”

Trump Aides Pressing for More Restraint on Twitter

President Donald Trump’s aides have also been pressing for more restraint by the president on Twitter, and some weeks ago they organized what one official called an “intervention.”

Aides have been concerned about the president’s use of Twitter to push inflammatory claims, notably his unsubstantiated allegation from March that his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, had wiretapped his offices. In that meeting, aides warned President Trump that certain kinds of comments made on Twitter would “paint him into a corner,” both in terms of political messaging and legally, one official said. Ken Duberstein, a former chief of staff to former President Ronald Reagan, said President Trump should not “take the bait of a shouted question or the shiny silver dollar of being able to tweet. Because then the rest of the agenda gets left on the cutting room floor.”

How social media filter bubbles and algorithms influence the election

One of the most powerful players in the British election is also one of the most opaque. With just over two weeks to go until voters go to the polls, there are two things every election expert agrees on: what happens on social media, and Facebook in particular, will have an enormous effect on how the country votes; and no one has any clue how to measure what’s actually happening there.

“Many of us wish we could study Facebook,” said Prof Philip Howard, of the University of Oxford’s Internet Institute, “but we can’t, because they really don’t share anything.” Howard is leading a team of researchers studying “computational propaganda” at the university, attempting to shine a light on the ways automated accounts are used to alter debate online.

© 1994-2024 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.