Slashdot Mirror
FCC's Claim That One ISP Counts As 'Competition' Faces Scrutiny In Court (arstechnica.com)
Jon Brodkin reports via Ars Technica: A Federal Communications Commission decision to eliminate price caps imposed on some business broadband providers should be struck down, advocacy groups told federal judges last week. The FCC failed to justify its claim that a market can be competitive even when there is only one Internet provider, the groups said. Led by Chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC's Republican majority voted in April of this year to eliminate price caps in a county if 50 percent of potential customers "are within a half mile of a location served by a competitive provider." That means business customers with just one choice are often considered to be located in a competitive market and thus no longer benefit from price controls. The decision affects Business Data Services (BDS), a dedicated, point-to-point broadband link that is delivered over copper-based TDM networks by incumbent phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink.
But the FCC's claim that "potential competition" can rein in prices even in the absence of competition doesn't stand up to legal scrutiny, critics of the order say. "In 2016, after more than 10 years of examining the highly concentrated Business Data Services market, the FCC was poised to rein in anti-competitive pricing in the BDS market to provide enterprise customers, government agencies, schools, libraries, and hospitals with much-needed relief from monopoly rates," Phillip Berenbroick, senior policy counsel at consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge said. But after Republicans gained the FCC majority in 2017, "the commission illegally reversed course without proper notice and further deregulated the BDS market, leaving consumers at risk of paying up to $20 billion a year in excess charges from monopolistic pricing," Berenbroick said.
But the FCC's claim that "potential competition" can rein in prices even in the absence of competition doesn't stand up to legal scrutiny, critics of the order say. "In 2016, after more than 10 years of examining the highly concentrated Business Data Services market, the FCC was poised to rein in anti-competitive pricing in the BDS market to provide enterprise customers, government agencies, schools, libraries, and hospitals with much-needed relief from monopoly rates," Phillip Berenbroick, senior policy counsel at consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge said. But after Republicans gained the FCC majority in 2017, "the commission illegally reversed course without proper notice and further deregulated the BDS market, leaving consumers at risk of paying up to $20 billion a year in excess charges from monopolistic pricing," Berenbroick said.
When is a monopoly not a monopoly? Why, when it's a monopoly, apparently.
This is beyond idiotic and dovetails nicely into the recent news that Comcast and other ISPs have decided that Americans "pay too little" for their broadband, which is an outrageous claim. Maybe we pay too little for road access too, why not just make all roads toll roads?
http://www.fiercecable.com/cab...
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
So human nature is immutable, and what is currently true about the species will always be true? We're too lazy for direct democracy, and always will be, even with networked computers?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Most countries call this "the government" but the USA enabled union-bashing by dismissing government-employed strikers, enabled child-bashing by removing truth-in-advertising, enabled welfare-bashing by cutting healthcare and unemployment services, abandons the weak via 'tough on crime' and 'work for the dole' policies, refuses to engage its single-buyer advantage.
Then, congress-critters deliberately contaminate politics by claiming privately-owned is superior to government-owned, corporations have more rights than individuals, minor parties have no power. US congress also banned socialism, repeatedly enacted laws reducing the power of customers and employees, encouraged money in politics.
That's part of it. The main reason is, so many voters believe the propaganda that they demand more corruption. As long as less than 4% of the population stand and fight the corruption, that is, join the swing-vote, the people will lose.