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.
This probably just applies to rural shitholes anyways.
Im TOTALLY putting all my monies in the USA. For sure bro.
Government can now declare fruit is a vegetable, up is down, we have always been at war with EastAsia and Slavery is Freedom.
All hail the Grossen Imperator Inglorious
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.
The original rule was obvious bullshit. Price controls should be imposed unless 100% of potential customers have at least one competitive provider at each and every location.
Eliminating even the pretense of controlling the monopoly is not better. A new rule should actually control the monopoly. Or better yet, make it untenable to be a monopoly.
"as good as or better than others of a comparable nature."
This is clever because all internet providers collude in maintaining low service and high price, so as they ALL lower their standards together, indeed they are all "as good as others of comparable nature".
For all the good things coming out of this administration (and admit it, lots of people see the things coming out of the administration as good*), FCC and internet related issues seem to be severely anti-populist.
In the run-up to the midterm elections, it sounds like this could be a wedge issue, a prominent plank in the Democratic platform.
How come we never hear any Democrat candidates harp on this issue?
How come Democrat candidates never say "if elected, I'll be for *this* and *that* specific reform, to address these problems?
(We never hear Republican candidates do this either, but Republicans are in power right now and are the ones ignoring the problems so there's no need to bring it up.)
(*) Much better economy, end of ISIS, getting our allies to pay more for their own defense, renegotiating trade deals with EU and Mexico (with Canada and China coming up), defunding terrorism by defunding Iran, tax rebates, the list goes on...)
In the end, anyone could just start a competing ISP at those same regions, right? Isn't that how Capitalist Freedom optimizes every possible problem?
Lots of people will watch Trump die in Federal prison, what's your point, that you're too up Putin's ass to notice he colluded in the open and obstructed justice? You're a moron.
Trump appointees continue mission of dismantling their institutions.
So have AT&T and Medicom established a checker-board pattern of non-compete territory all of which is half a mile from the other's guy's territory?
And which telecom do you think Ajit Pai is going to go work for once he's kicked out?
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/
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.
If the physical infrastructure were separated from the service, requiring third parties to act as middlemen, then it would be competitive.
We've already got a similar system with Mobile Virtual Network Operators on cell networks. The big four carriers own the infrastructure, but the MVNOs sell the service to customers with various prices/packages. Some offer unlimited data for $50/month, others provide basic pre-paid service for about $50 per year.
It's just so frustrating that no one in the government or any political party has recommended we do this.
Let's say I live in rural Indiana. If Indianapolis has two or more ISPs and the average price of some tier of service is $70/month there––
And I can get similar service from the sole ISP in my area for the same $70/month, then I'd say my service is competitive. Even if there is no competition.
There's more than one definition of the word competiive.
Although I might grumble that if there was competition, who knows, I might be able to get it for $65.
Might
And no, I'm not just shilling for Pai. I hate that asshole.
The 'Competitive Market Test' which the FCC defended this under, seems to be where this really failed the public.
Seems a singular entity, enough to create the market for which it exists, is enough to satisfy that test. I think I'm reading that right...
The mental gymnastics, under economic theory to which they reference, must be astounding.
The fact that they didn't reference say a 'layman test' , where, would the 'common citizen' consider whether 1 ISP as market competition, shows exactly who matters in this equation. And this shows who the FCC is really protecting. It sure isn't the customers.
As I understand it, The rule is that if there is a competitor with 1/2 of a mile, they can rule that the market has competition. But if there are no competitors, then the price controls apply.
So I think the headline is a bit misleading here.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Sounds like the incumbent is being tricked into raising their prices until the nearby competitor pulls their cables into the area. Then your lawyer better find a reason to sue the incumbent when they bring their prices down to undercut you.
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
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.
"Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'competitive' that I wasn't previously aware of."
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?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I've always admired how courts are able to determine x caused y's cancer where such attribution is provably well beyond the reach of current technology.
Shouldn't be much of a shock that a legal system that charges inanimate objects with crimes (civil asset forfeiture) would conclude that monopoly positions are competitive markets.
The digression of legal world from reality presents an evolving danger to society.
When population density gets beyond a few 10s per km^2, this starts to seem pretty delusional. Can't wait for the ISP service area gerrymandering to start, if it hasn't already.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
By that logic, you could argue that even if we only had one ISP in the whole USA, it would still be competitive based on comparative rates with international ISPs, right? Also have you ever lived in rural Indiana? I'm from there and I can tell you that service in those areas is nowhere near as good as the larger cities. To be competitive you have to have comparable services. Quality rural service is an afterthought to these companies because they know there are no other options.
Also, if they cared about competition, they wouldn't lobby against municipal ISPs with such vigor. They don't WANT to be competitive. When used by telecomms companies, words like "competitive" and "unlimited" are just buzz words.
if any of this is going to change how anyone votes? Even a little. I realize this might not be a big enough issue to make the "single issue voter" grade, but so far as I can tell while it annoys people it's not something that even registers with even the most tech savvy voter. And so long as the FCC knows they can get away with it why stop? Especially when the gravy train of sweet post FCC cush jobs awaits.
I wouldn't mind seeing corruption be a bigger issue for Americans. They claim it is, but when it's time to vote they won't make it an issue. Not in any practical way.
What we really need is more guys like these who refuse corporate & PAC money. We should make refusing bribes a litmus test for all politicians. No refusal means no vote in the primary.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Welcome to the new world where one choice is competitive. Newspeak brought to you by the GOP.
Because your third cousin is rich enough to feed you.
so I don't really care where the quote came from.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Monopoly: n. When ONE single business, commercial entity or organization is the only provider of a product, good, or service in a zone, region, domain or economy. (Emphasis mine.)
At the FCC, they apparently donâ(TM)t know how many ONE is. And I guess basic enumeration is outside the set of mathematical skills required to be an American jurist.
The following was posted to a local mailing list. I've tried to censor out specific location stuff and names with Hilariously Bad Replacements In Initial Caps.
Hi everyone! A little over a year ago, my wife and I moved our young family into a home just 7 miles north of MyTown, on Highway 6969. As most of you know, there is no access to internet of any kind this far away from MyTown. Over the last year, I have been reading the Local Mailing List and have seen many people who are frustrated with CenturyLink's poor telephone service and lack of internet access outside of the city limits.
I have also read about how AwesomeISP Communications recently branched out into RuralTownship (which is only a few miles from my house. Almost a year ago, I filled out an application with AwesomeISP to get on the wait list if they expanded past RuralTownship. Yesterday, I called AwesomeISP Comms and asked if they are planning any expansion out this way.The lady put me on hold and then came back on the phone to tell me that they have no plans to come any farther this way past RuralTownship. I thanked her for her time and ended the call.
I then called CenturyLink and asked them when they plan to expand up the 6969 North toward my house. The lady was very nice, but she also told me that they have no plans to come this way. She then said something that I did not expect... She said, "You need to talk to your State Representative." I was very surprised and I said, "I need to talk to a politician to get internet access?" She, an EMPLOYEE of CenturyLink, told me that her company has no plans to expand and it is too costly (in the opinion of the rich executives), but if I get State Representatives involved that they can put pressure on CenturyLink to bring internet my way... I thanked her for her time and ended the call.
So, I Googled "My County State Representative" and found BillyBob Representative in OtherTown. I called his office and spoke to a nice lady who told me that Mr. Representative is well aware of the lack of internet in My County and that he has been in talks with CenturyLink, but she couldn't share any more information. So, I sent an email directly to Mr. Representative. We will see if I get a response, but I will not be holding my breath while waiting.
Today, I was driving through MyTown and I saw a CenturyLink van pulled to the side of the road. The technician was standing near his van, so I pulled over and started a friendly conversation with him. I asked if he knew of any plans to expand up the 6969, north of town. He laughed and said, "No, sir! How are you liking your Satellite Internet? Hahahahaha." I was a little frustrated at that joke, but I kept the conversation going in a friendly manner. I told him that I called CenturyLink on the previous day and I told him what the lady had told me about getting politicians involved. He laughed again and said, "You know what the problem is? CenturyLink has no competition and until another company comes in here to compete with them, CenturyLink is not going to spend a penny expanding fiber lines outside of town." Then he told me something about how MyTown or The State had signed some non-compete contract or legislation or something (he didn't know the legal terminology) with CenturyLink which gives them a complete monopoly on telephone, internet, and cable in My County. He agreed, that we need to get politicians involved to either lobby CenturyLink to expand their internet cables, or to change the contract/law to get a competitor company to start providing internet in our area.
if you're a corrupt politician you want the dollars from the cable companies. If you're not corrupt, well, this matters but you've got much bigger things to worry about. Healthcare for one. 45,000 people die in America every year from preventable diseases. Then there's the 8 wars we're in right now. Or our crumbling infrastructure. Or the fact that we're seeing more kids with food insecurity due to plummeting wages.
Even if you're a white knight who wants NN there's only so much you can do. That's certainly the vibe I get from Bernie. He did a bit of talking on NN but he's too busy with Medicare for All, the student loan crisis and getting wages raised. There's only so much time in the day and so much space in his constituents minds.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
America, fuck yea. Comin again to ruin the mother fuckin day now.
That doesn't make it competitive. I'm from rural Illinois which is basically the same animal as rural Indiana and the same service at the same price is not competitive. In a place where the quality of internet service is third world and $30,000-$50,000 makes you one of the distinguished high earning professionals in the surrounding 100 mile radius paying what you'd pay in LA is highway robbery.