Charter Admits Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment One of the biggest talking points in the ISP assault on net neutrality is the idea that these modest consumer protections seriously harmed network investment. This falsehood has been repeated time, and time, and time again by ISP lobbying organizations and former industry employees like current FCC boss Ajit Pai. Of course as we've noted countless times, public SEC and earnings reports, independent analysis as well as numerous ISP executive statements to investors (who by law they can't lie to) have debunked this narrative time and time again.

That doesn't seem to matter to the ISPs and loyal lawmakers pushing this dishonest idea; in fact the FCC tried to argue the point again last week in a facts-optional " fact sheet " (pdf) they circulated to support their attack on the popular consumer protections. But in announcing the company's launch of gigabit service in Oahu this week over at the company blog, Charter once again inadvertently highlighted how this claim is little more than disingenuous dreck. "While customers may experience these speed upgrades as if a switch has been flipped, they were made possible by Charter’s ongoing investments in infrastructure and technology," says Charter of the company's launch. "These investments allow us to better serve our customers every day, in ways big and small. Since 2014, Charter has invested more than $21 billion in these critical areas." That's not the only time Charter executives have admitted net neutrality had no negative impact on their network investment. Charter CEO Tom Rutledge told former FCC boss Tom Wheeler that "the commission’s decision to reclassify broadband Internet access under Title II has not altered Charter’s approach of investing significantly in its network to deliver cutting edge services."

Rutledge is also on record also telling investors that "Title II, it didn’t really hurt us; it hasn’t hurt us." Former Time Warner Cable CEO Rob Marcus, whose company was acquired by Charter last year, also is on record predicting that implementing Title II and net neutrality "won’t see a change in the way we do business." If that's not enough for you, check out this analysis of industry CAPEX (pdf) by consumer group Free Press, which found that "during the two years following the FCC’s Open Internet Order vote... From 2015-2016 Charter’s pro forma capital investments [including newly acquired Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks] topped $14.5 billion, a 15 percent increase which came despite hundreds of millions of dollars (or more) in synergies that Charter claimed following the May 2016 closing of the deal." At the same time, all of the lobbying organizations Charter funds have been arguing for years that Title II and net neutrality had a massive, negative impact on sector investment. Those claims have popped up again and again in company and lobbyist PR statements, lawsuits against the FCC, and in editorials by loyal footsoldiers funded by the cable industry. And, again, they're also being used by At the same time, all of the lobbying organizations Charter funds have been arguing for years that Title II and net neutrality had a massive, negative impact on sector investment. Those claims have popped up again and again in company and lobbyist PR statements, lawsuits against the FCC, and in editorials by loyal footsoldiers funded by the cable industry. And, again, they're also being used by Ajit Pai as a cornerstone of what may just be the least popular decision in tech policy history.







News Jump Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news 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 ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 21 comments



TIGERON

join:2008-03-11

Boston, MA Motorola MG7550

1 edit 14 recommendations TIGERON Member Once this information is used in court Little lyin’ Pai won’t be smiling his bullshit anymore. Hopefully anyway.



With the massive opposition, the hatred against him and the unpopularity of his policies you would think the court would see right through Pai’s bullshit and tell him to kindly go fuck himself.



The reality is that this ping pong game of going back and forth is not working. We need some common sense with network neutrality, the realities of network congestion and management, technology growth, adaptation, expansion, costs and strategies of deploying fiber upgrades to areas where it is feasible.



Not every area is going to get fiber. Let’s be real. This is why I support g.fast. The copper is still valuable. I’ve said it before many times in the case of Frontier and other small telecoms, build a middle mile fiber network, and deploy gfast equipment as an upgrade to ADSL on the last mile. That can work.



As far as Ajit Pai, he’s a corporate stooge and lying jackass who’s nose has been up the ass of Brian Roberts, Randall Stephenson and Lowell McAdam. Most people with any sense want to see him get run over by a moving train for trying to fuck over the country.

Anon11b14

@sandwichisles.net 13 recommendations Anon11b14 Anon Lies! "to investors (who by law they can't lie to)" Why can't there be laws to protect Americans from lying politicians? If caught more than once are impeached and thrown in prison for treason. It's ok to lie to voters but not ok to lie to investors? WTF! en103

join:2011-05-02 10 recommendations en103 Member Businesses Just don't want to have to deal with rules/regulations and be pushed into _any_ possible form of compliance. In some ways, I don't blame them. Telephone service was (is?) highly regulated and people eventually went around POTS.

The sad part about this... ISP's are really just the last mile and shouldn't have much say in filtering.

My concern is / and has been any form of

a) Throttling/filtering/traffic shaping to push competitors down (ala bit torrent)

b) Making the Internet more of a 'Walled Garden' approach of services (ala AOL/CompuServe / etc. of the past) for a lower fee, and eventually removing 'access' to the actual Internet itself

c) Service based caps - i.e. You will get unlimited YouTube at 4K screen (complete with Ads), but, 5GB of Email + web browsing .. unless you opt into 'ads'

d) URL / URI modifications. I personally _really_ disliked Verizon's URL injection,

e) Banning of VPN/Proxy tunnels



While some of these haven't happened yet... Some of these have happened in the past, and revenue from various sources will bring them back.