FCC Can Define Markets With Only One ISP as 'Competitive', Court Rules (arstechnica.com)

An appeals court has upheld a Federal Communications Commission ruling that broadband markets can be competitive even when there is only one Internet provider. From a report: The FCC "rationally chose which evidence to believe among conflicting evidence," the court ruling said. The FCC voted last year to eliminate price caps imposed on some business broadband providers such as AT&T and Verizon. The FCC decision eliminated caps in any given county if 50 percent of potential customers "are within a half mile of a location served by a competitive provider." This is known as the "competitive market test." Because of this, broadband-using businesses might not benefit from price controls even if they have just one choice of ISP.

Comments

Why do people keep blaming the market for this?

[Solandri]

These areas have only one ISP because local governments awarded a monopoly, and prohibit competition. These ISPs are not natural monopolies created by the market. There is no invisible hand of the market at work here because government regulation eliminated market forces.

The only areas free of the problem are the ones where government got out of the way and allowed multiple ISPs to compete.

Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this?

[sjames]

As jeff4747 explained to you, those exclusive agreements have all expired and never covered internet in the first place. I'll enlarge for you. They were made in the first place because before that there were zero cable companies willing to serve the area due to high starting costs to recoup. So they were granted a temporary monopoly and regulations to go with it so they would have a sure way to recoup their costs. They have now done that a few times over.

The problem is that the same market forces that kept them out of the area before now keep everyone else out of the area now PLUS there's an incumbent provider to contend with. Without further government action, those forces will remain in place next year and for decades to follow.

Now, as for the FCC, I'm not so sure that 5 competitors is enough to make a healthy market, much less only 2. Having a "competitor" a half mile away is as good as not having one.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are all the Trump/Pai supporters to tell us how this is really a good thing and the invisible hand of the market will make everything all right? Is it possible there is some level of corporate cronyism that even they can't justify?

But I also know that there are larger issues at hand, the two most obvious ones being the economy and immigration.

For example, I really like the new economy, and I think illegal immigration needs to be reined in..

Yet illegal immigration has already been way down for years before your orange dreamboat took office. And do you have any actual numbers that indicate that the illegal immigration that occurs has a negative impact on the country? I agree that laws are laws and should be enforced, but everything is a matter of priority (we don't insist that every driver who speeds MUST be fined) and I just don't see the evidence that illegal immigration is anywhere being the biggest threat to the US right now. That's why it always smells of racism when people complain about immigration, the concern just never matches the actual impact of the issue.

Also, what "new economy"? Are you seriously suggestion that the Trump administration has had a significant impact on the economy? the economy that has been steadily getting stronger since about 2008? I'll concede that there's some (possibly temporary) bump in the stock market caused by the tax cuts allowing corporations to do massive buy-backs of stock, but to equate that with economical gains on a global level is just silly. What else has Trump done (specifically) to boost the economy? Spend government funds at his own hotels and golf clubs?

Ignorance proven

[mysidia]

50 percent of potential customers "are within a half mile of a location served by a competitive provider."

WTF? Has the government been proceeding with their ears plugged for the past decade?
The whole issue is The last mile problem

A competing provider is not going to travel Half a Mile to try and grab another provider's customers ---- buildout is so extremely expensive that typically there is a tacit agreement between so-called "competitors" that they will stay away from other providers' turf.

Just TRY and get a cable company to service you whose nearest line is 1/2 a mile away.
Extending service by 1/2 mile of thickline is something like $30,000+ in a suburban/rural area, and potentially half a million or more in build costs to run the additional cable in an urban area ---- thus they aren't inclined to build, especially when the consequence is violating a de-facto unwritten informal but anti-competitive agreement b/w neighboring providers that risks causing revenue loss from losing other customers.

And just think

[smooth wombat]

If Kavanaugh gets put on the Supreme Court, ISPs like Verizon/ATT/Comcast will be given free reign to rape and pillage users as they see fit.

If one ISP is considered a "competitive market", then what's a little throttling and price gouging among friends?

Re:The devil is in the details here...

[jeff4747]

The point is that the FCC is using a standard that is utterly divorced from reality, whether or not they have price caps.