What I had alluded to earlier: In 2006 AT&T and BellSouth combined made $11.8 billion in gross capital expenditures. The merger of AT&T and BellSouth consummated on December 29th 2006, with the imposition of 2 years of 4 principles PLUS 5th principle of non-discrimination conditions. In 2007 AT&T's gross capital expenditures was $17.7 billion. In 2008 AT&T's gross capital expenditures was $19.7 billion. Thus, under two years of Net Neutrality, AT&T's investment increased 67% from the period where it wasn't operating under the fifth principle.
POINT: AT&T's gross capital expenditures grew more (in percentage increase terms) while under Net Neutrality than any other ISP in America! SHOW ME THE MONEY: DOES NET NEUTRALITY HURT OR HELP INVESTMENTS? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/10/show_me_the_money_does_net_neu.html Will net neutrality hurt or help the economy? Amid a stubborn recession, that question will take center stage as critics and proponents debate how new rules at the Federal Communications Commission would impact investments in the Web. At a high level, the arguments are straight forward. But the details supporting those views -- which will likely be debated for months at the FCC -- become vastly more complicated. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and proponents of new rules say the next Google or Amazon being cooked up in some garage may not see the light of day if a policy isn't put in place that ensure they'll make it on the Web. "There are hundreds of thousands of Americans whose small businesses rely upon the free and open Internet," Genachowski said in a Q&A last week. "The rules I am proposing seek to preserve the Internet as unparalleled engine for economic growth and prosperity." Next week (Oct. 22), the FCC will vote on Genachowski's proposal that would codify and broaden guidelines for how Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Sprint Nextel treat content on their networks. The rules would prevent those companies from acting as gatekeeper, ensuring consumers and businesses get any legal content or services of their choice. Opponents of his plan, say ISPs need flexibility to manage their network traffic and keep down costs. They want to make sure some bandwidth hogs aren't ruining the experience for other consumers. And shareholders need to be assured they will get a return on their investments without the uncertainty of new regulations. Is such, net neutrality proponents like Google want "for us not to be able to differentiate but set a standard that would shift all costs of building a network to us and so that we are treated as the lowest denominator common carrier," Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon Communications said during a visit with Post reporters and editorial board members last spring. "So if you listen to the west coast crowd, they are trying to effectively quarantine what our permissible activities are," he said. The proposal is expected to pass next week, which will launch a months- long review process at the FCC before final rules are drafted. Both sides of the debate are gearing up for a battle on the economics of broadband in a net neutrality world. US Telecom, a trade group representing the telecommunications carriers, says growth in broadband networks has boomed over the last several years, so don't mess around with something that isn't broken. Since 2003, when the FCC began deregulating communications markets, broadband has increased (In 2008, investments were 30 percent higher than in 2003), the group wrote in a paper last MayBrogan, SPRING 2009, "While we do not claim direct causation, it is reasonable to conclude that the correlation is driven by more than mere coincidence and policies that encourage and facilitate facilities-based competition play a significant role in encouraging investment in facilities," Patrick Brogan, vice president of industry analysis at USTelecom wrote in an email as a caveat. To show how rules can deter investment, the major carriers didn't apply for stimulus grants set aside for broadband networks because, some industry insiders said, because the grants were saddled with net neutrality conditions. Derek Turner, the director of research for public interest group, Free Press, argues against those claims. He says AT&T increased its investments in broadband after its merger with Bell South in late 2006 (Gross capital expenditures were $11.8 billion in 2006, $17.7 billion in 2007, and $19.7 billion in 2008, Turner says) even though the merger forced the company to abide by net neutrality conditions. The conditions would prohibit the company from discriminately blocking content or applications on their networks. His research also shows that after the 1996 Telecom Act was approved, capital expenditures as a percentage of revenues reach about 30 percent. Following deregulation around 2003, those investments began to taper and are currently around 18 percent of revenues today. "Investment decisions are incredibly complicated with so many other factors that go into them -- expectations about demand, competition, supply costs, interest rates, etc." said Turner. "Regulations factor in too, but not any more than any one of those other things, especially a light regulation like what the chairman is proposing." He says competition has a bigger impact on investment decisions. That's an opinion voiced also by Blair Levin, a former Wall Street analyst who is now heading the FCC's creation of a plan to bring broadband to all U.S. homes. Levin, who also worked with Genachowski as a technology advisor to Pres. Obama during the transition, said at a 2006 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on telecommunications competition that regulation doesn't move the needle on investments. "In my view, this is like believing that a piece of a puzzle is the entire puzzle," Levin wrote. The promise of a competitive marketplace, however, can be a bigger incentive for investment, he said. "Ultimately, to serve the goal of stimulating a rising standard of living for Americans, the challenge for government is to assure a broadband environment characterized by survival of the fittest, as selected by the market, rather than survival of the friendliest, as selected by the network owners or government," he said. = = = = = Timothy Karr Campaign Director Free Press :: www.freepress.net<http://www.freepress.net/> SavetheInternet.com :: www.savetheinternet.com<http://www.savetheinternet.com/> FreeMyPhone :: www.freepress.net/FreeMyPhone<http://www.freepress.net/FreeMyPhone> 201.533.8838 reform media. transform democracy.
