ISPs Tell Investors Title II Won't Hurt Them In The Slightest Verizon, as the company that sued to overturn the FCC's weaker net neutrality rules, has been repeatedly claiming that Title II-based rules will harm investment and innovation. Of course the vocal component of wireless networks are regulated under Title II with nary a hiccup. Similarly parts of Verizon's FiOS network have been regulated for years under Title II in order to nab the company tax breaks, similarly without a single problem.

really harm investment, the company continues to claim the opposite. At least until this week, when company CFO Fran Shammo failed to get the memo. Speaking at this week's UBS investor conference, Shammo was asked this by a UBS investment analyst: quote: Obviously there's a lot of commentary coming out of Washington about this move to Title II. Obviously Verizon has been one of the more of a stiffer opponents of any sort of increased regulation, especially on the Wireless side. What's your view of that potential occurrence down in Washington and does it affect your view on the attractiveness of investing further in the United States? Shammo's reply: quote: I mean to be real clear, I mean this does not influence the way we invest . I mean we're going to continue to invest in our networks and our platforms, both in Wireless and Wireline FiOS and where we need to. So nothing will influence that. I mean if you think about it, look, I mean we were born out of a highly regulated company, so we know how this operates. Again, just so we're clear, that's a company that has repeatedly claimed that Title II will kill investment, unequivocally stating that it will do no such thing. Charter CEO Tom Rutledge was similarly non-plussed about Title II, stating that while he supported the simpler Section 706 approach, the company didn't actually see a problem with Title II for forebearance: quote: ...I was surprised that they came out with the plan the way they did. And obviously forbearance done properly could work and we think that the fundamental objective seems reasonable. We practice net neutrality. Comcast and Time Warner Cable also indicated that while they're always wary about broader regulations, Title II specifically is not something that keeps them up at night. When asked whether Title II would impact the company's ROI, Comcast CFO Michael Angelakis stated "I don't think so." That's in stark contrast to the breathless studies by countless industry-funded think tanks and fauxcademics paid to play net neutrality chicken little, all of whom will surely pretend these comments were never made.In reality, Title II only really impacts an ISP if they're other guy) it's not really Title II ISPs are actually scared of. It's tough net neutrality rules that could stop them from taking advantage of an uncompetitive broadband market to impose discriminatory pricing and traffic management, since they've long While it's clear Title II won'tharm investment, the company continues to claim the opposite. At least until this week, when company CFO Fran Shammo failed to get the memo. Speaking at this week's UBS investor conference, Shammo was asked this by a UBS investment analyst:Shammo's reply:Again, just so we're clear, that's a company that has repeatedly claimed that Title II will kill investment, unequivocally stating that it will do no such thing. Charter CEO Tom Rutledge was similarly non-plussed about Title II, stating that while he supported the simpler Section 706 approach, the company didn't actually see a problem with Title II for forebearance:Comcast and Time Warner Cable also indicated that while they're always wary about broader regulations, Title II specifically is not something that keeps them up at night. When asked whether Title II would impact the company's ROI, Comcast CFO Michael Angelakis stated "I don't think so." That's in stark contrast to the breathless studies by countless industry-funded think tanks and fauxcademics paid to play net neutrality chicken little, all of whom will surely pretend these comments were never made.In reality, Title II only really impacts an ISP if they're considering bad neutrality behavior . While they're certainly no fans of regulation (unless it's used to screw theguy) it's not really Title II ISPs are actually scared of. It's tough net neutrality rules that could stop them from taking advantage of an uncompetitive broadband market to impose discriminatory pricing and traffic management, since they've long made clear there's billions to be made off of cleverly misbehaving and double (or triple) dipping on the neutrality front.







News Jump Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more ---------------------- this week last week most discussed view:

topics flat nest AndyDufresne

Premium Member

join:2010-10-30

Chanhassen, MN AndyDufresne Premium Member off script oops Always funny when exec goes off script. I'm sure Verizon will send out a PR person soon enough to clarify what he meant. Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH Nanaki (banned) Member Re: off script oops That might be hard with all the i means i mean really its like i mean um obvious what he meant to say i mean come on really how many times must one say i mean i mean its qite silly ya know what i mean ?



*wipes forehead with a paper towel



Hehe

chuch

join:2001-04-11

Tampa, FL chuch to AndyDufresne

Member to AndyDufresne

Being an exVerizon employee of 17 years, one of the best ways to see if Shammo is lying is to see if his lips are moving.

Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA 1 recommendation Zenit Premium Member Proof! VZ's CFO has confirmed that Title II is not the earth shattering end of the universe that some like to claim it is!



Then again, investment in wire line at the same level is not great either - upgrades at the speed of a glacier and a near total lack of maintenance on the aging copper plant in non-fios zones.



If I recall correctly, Comcast also came out and said Title II does not worry them either way...

tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA 1 edit tshirt Premium Member Re: Proof! said by Zenit: If I recall correctly, Comcast also came out and said Title II does not worry them either way...

It's the consumers that need to worry as to exactly what gets written in to a law that will control telecom investment for the next 20-100 years. Probably not, they'll continue to make 10-12-15% as a utility, and get all sorts of tax relief for upgrades to the plant, plus likely end up as the exclusive carrier, depending on how far back we want to regulate.It's the consumers that need to worry as to exactly what gets written in to a law that will control telecom investment for the next 20-100 years.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop to Zenit

Member to Zenit

They see it as a way to chip away at the little guy. Someone the size of Verizon can handle this with little to no effort while passing the expense on to the end user. The little guy has a more difficult time because of the extra bullshit that goes with this and they won't be able to pass the additional costs to the end user.

Karl Bode

News Guy

join:2000-03-02 Karl Bode News Guy Re: Proof! Sonic CEO Dane Jasper supports Title II. I've also see DSLExtreme offer up support for Title II.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Re: Proof! Sonic and DSLExtreme are not what I consider the little guy. I'm thinking that 25 employee less sized company.

Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA Zenit Premium Member Re: Proof!







And the 25 employee companies you mention probably have zero interest in playing political shenanigans and forcing their own network agendas...they provide a pipe and that's it. Any small providers still offering TV as a product are bailing at lightning speed as the costs of content are going sky-high.



Besides, these small companies are normally very good at getting service out to the boonies. They should have no issues with any future universal service agenda that could arise out of Title II.



After all, they live with Title II telephone service, right?



Regarding Sonic and DSLX, they can be considered small as they have very little to no plant of their own - they are entirely dependent on AT&T (in the case of Sonic/DSLX) or VZ (DSLX resells DSL) to connect customers.



Yes, Sonic has a microscopic native FTTH footprint, but its not significant enough to really matter - its smaller than the existing Google Fiber footprint. I cant think of very many telecom's that are that small. Malheur Bell was tiny enough to fit that criteria (and was the last unit of the Bell System to still use the Bell logo) but they got gobbled up into Qwest/CenturyLinks larger operations.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Re: Proof! "zero interest in playing political shenanigans and forcing their own network agendas"



They don't have the resources get political so they just take what they get. AVonGauss

Premium Member

join:2007-11-01

Boynton Beach, FL AVonGauss to Zenit

Premium Member to Zenit

Remember we're talking ISPs, and there are still quite a few smaller ISPs this could also apply to. An example would be quite often a condo will contract with a company to provide consumer Internet service at a reduced rate. That third party company in turn is using a link provided Level 3, Comcast or whoever - not actually operating physical interconnects themselves. How this would apply to hot spot operators is not clearly defined that I have seen. quisp65

join:2003-05-03

San Diego, CA ·webpass.net

·Charter

quisp65 Member It depends what Title II morphs into.... The FCC leans toward the hybrid approach and so do I for the time being. Title II is just not needed because the only issue we are really having now is questionable negotiating tactics regarding the back end.



I could see the risk of populist proposals being forced on the ISPs in the future that get the roar of the crowd but hamper innovation and further investment.



Why do it if it's not needed now?!! Also we don't want net neutrality to only mean legal content. The current President's proposal isn't even Net Neutrality IMO. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: It depends what Title II morphs into.... said by quisp65: "only issue we are really having now is questionable negotiating tactics regarding the back end"



Of course we have to ignore the lack of competition in virtually the entire US to come to this conclusion. Yes it is all rainbows and fairy dust farts.Of course we have to ignore the lack of competition in virtually the entire US to come to this conclusion. quisp65

join:2003-05-03

San Diego, CA ·webpass.net

·Charter

quisp65 Member Re: It depends what Title II morphs into.... Yea.. but Title II won't do nothing about that and if price controls or equality/quality of service issues get introduced later down the road with Title II enforcement, it could add further strain on what little chance we have now of getting some competition. Maybe this won't happen, but it would not surprise me if later it got added. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: It depends what Title II morphs into.... They can easily force line sharing with Title II, as they should. AVonGauss

Premium Member

join:2007-11-01

Boynton Beach, FL AVonGauss Premium Member Re: It depends what Title II morphs into.... Title II as it is being thrown around has nothing to do with forced line sharing, that would be the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Title VII I believe). The basis of which would not likely apply to most cable operators, or even some of the telecoms. AVonGauss AVonGauss Premium Member I would bet... I would bet most of the people advocating "Title II" have never read the actual documents in question and thus have no idea what they are asking for. Rather than blindly asking or advocating for something which you have no idea about, it would make more sense to say what is important to you. The actual pieces of regulation or legislation used to empower an agency are not all that important to most people.



Remember, Capone was sent away for tax evasion - not murder, racketeering or any of the other myriad of crimes he committed or fostered. And No, I'm not comparing ISPs to organized crime, its just a rather famous example of how the laws work indirectly.

tschmidt

MVM

join:2000-11-12

Milford, NH ·Hollis Hosting

·FirstLight Fiber

·Republic Wireless

tschmidt MVM Re: I would bet...

»transition.fcc.gov/Repor ··· 4new.pdf



Without getting into specifics I think at the most basic level, given the ever increasing importance of the Internet, we need to ask a fundamental question.



Should ISPs have unfettered freedom to do whatever they want or do they perform such a valuable civic service they need to operate in the public interest, even if that is at the expense of business goals.



/tom I must admit I have not read the document:Without getting into specifics I think at the most basic level, given the ever increasing importance of the Internet, we need to ask a fundamental question./tom AVonGauss

Premium Member

join:2007-11-01

Boynton Beach, FL AVonGauss Premium Member Re: I would bet... ... and that's just the original, not including all the revisions including the 1996 act. tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member misdirection its the wireless market investors should be concerned about...

sooner or later, tmobile & sprint wont be such weak & crappy cellular providers...

this and inroads by major metro areas' push to deploy FREE wifi in cities.. puts a crimp on SKYs the limit on gouging for data services. countscabula

join:2010-03-09 countscabula Member surprised? I amazed that you're amazed. Telling investors one thing and the public something else has been going on forever. What's new about this? Is it news?

anonymiss

@98.250.204.x anonymiss Anon LOL They can't come out and say this will hurt them. It would cause stock holders to sue them instantly.



And in the end it won't hurt their bottom line, because they will ALL have to play under the same regulations.



In the end, this is only going to hurt the consumer.



Because it will give these companies the excuse they need to increase prices even more. Title II doesn't stop them from increasing prices at all. In fact, it guarantees they WILL increase prices.



This doesn't hurt them at all. your comment..

