Slashdot Mirror
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.
Truth isn't truth.
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?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
English wasn't my best subject, but doesn't competitive usually imply that 2 or more parties are involved.
How else can something be competitive?
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
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?
We're right here, and we don't necessarily agree with everything the administration does.
For example, I'm completely in favor of allowing women the ability to choose to have an abortion, with minimal government oversight (regulate the safety, not the right to choose).
But I also know that there are larger issues at hand, the two most obvious ones being the economy and immigration.
I accept that some of the smaller issues won't be handled in the way I think is optimal, but the bigger issues seem to be working out OK. For example, I really like the new economy, and I think illegal immigration needs to be reined in. (Legal immigration, to the tune of 1.1 million a year, is working out just fine - no problems with that.)
It's a question of priorities.
Would you quit a job over issues that you view as relatively minor, if the pay was good and had good benefits?
have been spending so much to win local elections. They've spent the last 30 years stacking the courts. Now it's paid off.
And I know it's not popular to call out one party because there's a bunch of pro-corporate Dems who helped stack those courts. But the Democrats at least have a party wing that refuses corporate & PAC money (they're called Justice Democrats, look 'em up). I know of no such animal for the other side. The Dems seem somewhat redeemable. e.g. the pro-consumer elements might take over at some point in a future I could conceive of. Barring a seismic shift like we got in the 60s after the civil rights movement I don't see that happening to the Republican party. At a certain point it's time to call a spade a spade.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't have a farm, and I live as close to a major city as I can without subjecting my kids to its school system.
With that said, my uncle does have a farm. He's a leftover hippie, so would not exactly qualify for your stereotype. But even he is completely disgusted by regulations on farms. The amount of paperwork, licensing, etc he needed to carry out some vermiculture and composting was insane. Farmers don't necessarily object to all regulations - especially the anti-monopoly sort we're talking about here. What farmers hate is when city politicians with absolutely no experience with farming whatsoever enact laws that impact the viability of farming.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
These areas have only one ISP because local governments awarded a monopoly, and prohibit competition
People aren't blaming government because this claim is false.
Local governments awarded monopolies for cable TV. Those monopolies were time-limited. They've all expired. And if you took a moment to think about it, you'd notice a cable TV monopoly is not an Internet service monopoly.
So no, this is not the ebil big govment. This is the result of the natural monopoly you get in any utility - the company that has already paid to run lines to every house has a massive competitive advantage over the companies that have not run those lines yet. And they're able to use that advantage to crush any competitor that tries to enter the market.
A free market does not prevent this from happening, and actually acts to maintain this situation. Which is why we need the ebil big govment to prevent exploiting the natural monopoly so that competitors can actually enter these markets so that they can become functional markets.
Having grown up in a rural area, my take is that generally farmers think they are anti-bad-regulation, but really they just end up being anti-whatever-their-lobby-tells-them regulation. They are kinda like small business owners, specialists with enough prestige that they tend to suck at knowing their limits and are easily suckered into voting against their best interests.