FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a host of
“coin operated” researchers and their sponsors relentlessly claim network
neutrality rule created substantial and measurable disincentives for wireless
carriers to invest in infrastructure. According
to these stakeholders, regulatory uncertainty caused by the rules and judicial
appeals to reverse them trump even the technology investment cycle.
I never
could understand how regulatory uncertainty occasioned by the appeal of the Restoring
Internet Freedom has not had the same effect. Chairman Pai claims that
investment has returned to pre-network neutrality levels thanks solely to his
deregulatory efforts. Never mind that
these efforts have triggered the same kind of appellate litigation as when a
prior Chairman sought to regulate broadband access.
Wouldn’t it
stand to reason that judicial appeals of deregulatory or regulatory initiatives
would have the same disincentives? Of
course, it would, if one could creditably determine that network neutrality rules and litigation
over them have a significant—or worst yet—a single and direct effect on network plant
investment.
In several blog
posts, I have stated the view that the cycle of next generation network
investment matters regardless whether litigation exists. Lo and behold here’s an article that confirms
the obvious: carriers make substantial investments in next generation plant,
such as 4G, then there is a lower investment burden as the new technology gets
deployed and turned on.
Right now,
after making a sizeable investment in 5G, Verizon can throttle down as it turns
on its new network. See Fierce Wireless,
Amid 5G rollout, Verizon reduces spending
on network (Oct. 23, 2018), available at: https://goo.gl/tgDreK.
Someday, I
hope stakeholders will realize that blatantly wrong assertions do not support
their cause, nor does it convert skeptics.
