By way of
full disclosure, I should report that I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal
and benefit from its news reporting. However,
my mental and emotional wellbeing also benefits if I ignore obvious mistruths
in countless editorials and columns, particularly ones about telecommunications
and the Internet. I have wasted
countless hours trying to set the record straight when some ideolog misrepresents
the truth to make some intellectually dishonest point.
Imagine
that: fake news and untruths from the Wall Street Journal.
Today’s
mistruth, on pA16 (Faster Internet Is on the Way): “American’s working at home
would be in a much worse position in this pandemic is the Obama [Network
Neutrality] rules were still in place.”
Editorial
writers at business publications know—or should know—that variation in
regulatory scope and even so-called regulatory uncertainty has limited, if any,
impact on the need for capital expenditures and a venture’s decision to make
the inevstment. Put another way, whether
the FCC does or does not impose Network Neutrality rules has no major impact on
a carrier’s incentive and need to invest in infrastructure.
Does anyone
truly and honestly believe that wireless carriers in the U.S. would take a “pass”
on 5G investment if the FCC still had open access requirements? Let me restate something obvious: carriers
invest out of competitive necessity and when technological innovations provide
opportunities for more revenues and consumer satisfaction. Network Neutrality rules might motivate carriers
might try to grab spectrum at auction for less money, but doing so only
provides evidence that the rules possibly might dampen profitability, not investment
incentives.
By the way, any profit dampening would
have little impact on the incentive and ability of U.S. wireless carriers to
make necessary investment. For years,
Sprint’s major investor, Japan’s Softbank,
and TMobile’s Deutsche Telekom made necessary investments. Failing to do so would risk ruin, including
the billions of dollars in “sunk investments.”
I’m
skeptical whether Network Neutrality would reduce carrier revenues and
profitability. Even FCC Chairman Ajit
Pai never got around to explaining how Network Neutrality rules would deprive
carriers of robust, revenue streams. It
was all about less incentives for investment, innovation and employment.
Ironically,
the fact that U.S. wireless carriers have managed to accommodate increased
demand supports my premise. The coronavirus
would have stimulated demand regardless of whether “Obama rules” or “Trump
Rules” were in effect. The Journal
editorial writers surely can make no credible argument that wireless carriers
somehow would be unable or unwilling to satisfy wireless network demand. A carrier either makes a network investment,
or not, based on anticipated demand and expectations of growth in that
demand. No one believes that Network
Neutrality rules would have stifled consumer demand for more bandwidth and
greater transmission speeds. The
opposite seems more likely.
I have never been a Network
Neutrality “true believer,” but some positive outcome seem crystal clear. Wireless carriers have maneuvered through a
rising tide of demand to the benefit of everyone, not just an exclusive group
whose rate plan qualifies them for preferred access to scarce network
resources.
Perhaps someday the Journal editorial
writers will understand the difference between public access to a service akin
to a basic necessity and a surcharge to jump the queue at a Disney theme park
ride.
