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.

97 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Re:In other news, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Truth isn't truth.

  2. Where are they? by Comboman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re: Where are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We're right here. And let us tell you that it will all be ok. An invisible hand is the BEST hand to stroke you into a calm submission. Just lay back and enjoy it. Relax your butt muscles. It won't hurt if you don't struggle.

    2. Re:Where are they? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Think of a gated community setting up its own new fast network.
      Its not going to be a new ISP out in the wider community.
      No ISP wants to just be an ISP for a gated community.

      By giving some freedom back to who and what an ISP is local communities can grow their own ISP without federal laws setting out what an approved competitive ISP is.
      By removing more and more federal NN rules and network laws people all over the USA can have the freedom to become their own ISP.
      Without having to be come a "competitive" new ISP state/nation wide.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Where are they? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I hope the meta-moderators correct this. I'd support off-topic of the parent and GP but the parent replied rationally while the GP was doing the trolling.

    4. Re:Where are they? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Think of a gated community setting up its own new fast network.
      Its not going to be a new ISP out in the wider community.
      No ISP wants to just be an ISP for a gated community.

      An ISP run as a co-op by the members of the gated community does.

      By giving some freedom back to who and what an ISP is local communities can grow their own ISP without federal laws setting out what an approved competitive ISP is.
      By removing more and more federal NN rules and network laws people all over the USA can have the freedom to become their own ISP.

      Horseshit. Net neutrality for a new ISP is the default. Networking equipment is out-of-the-box neutral. Only asshats in the incumbent national ISPs want to violate net neutrality and they want to do it for more money, not because it's either necessary for operation or better for the customers. Neither is true.

      Without having to be come a "competitive" new ISP state/nation wide.

      More horseshit. No new ISP has to instantly be national before it's legal, Not now, not ever. Nor does this law make it any easier to be a new ISP. It just means the incumbents can gouge you more than before because suddenly their monopoly status is ignored by the government.

  3. Replace bullshit with... nothing? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Replace bullshit with... nothing? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Not really a rational approach; line extensions should be viable for business users (to a point). The challenge comes when one provider is the LEC for one side of a street, but another is on the opposite side. It takes a CLEC to cross the lines, renting access from either or both providers.

      Likewise, should bad locations in a city/area be given preference for subsidies when alternate locations exist that have competition?

      Personally, I would love to see opportunities for small ISPs because of the broken market. Might not help everyone, but it is a reasonable starting point.

  4. Re:just move by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

    Just move...This probably just applies to rural shitholes anyways.

    Businesses in rural shitholes are often the type you do NOT want in your city.
    Have you ever smelled a chicken coop?
    What about a processing plant for animal carcasses?

    It is for everyone's benefit that they're in the middle of nowhere.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  5. Re:just move by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

    These are places were your food is grown.
    Despite looking like a painting from the 1800's With fields of produce, and livestock. Modern farms are actually often more High Tech then most Silicon Valley offices. With Robots, Self Driving Vehicles, Big Data analytics, real time market access.... Much of this all done over the farmers phone, when he is taking a 5 minute break from shoving crap.
    Affordable High Speed Internet is key for rural areas.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  6. Re:just move by bobbied · · Score: 1

    This probably just applies to rural s...holes anyways.

    Actually, the price caps remain in rural areas where only one ISP exists and a competitor is more than 1/2 mile away. So it seems to be exactly the opposite to me.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  7. Re:In other news, by jellomizer · · Score: 1
    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  8. FCC dismantal by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:FCC dismantal by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Too far. While it might feel good to say "go punch a NAZI", advocating violence just puts you down at the level of the brownshirts. You're not helping our side.

    2. Re:FCC dismantal by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Whatever you say anonymous Russian instigator.

      I'm going to bet that we literally accomplish voting Trump out of office here in a couple years. If Mueller doesn't get him first. Good luck with Putin though.

  9. C student in English by DarkRookie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:C student in English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The FCC assume that:

      1) if there's a competitive ISP serving someone half a mile from you, then that ISP would be willing to extend their network to cover you. That's probably not the case, but it's what the FCC decided to (pretend to?) believe. Therefore, the FCC can claim that you have a choice of changing to that other provider

      2) The fact that people have an alternative provider and could switch to it, means that the ISPs in that area have to keep the price down.

      3) ISPs are going to set prices for everyone in the county to be the same, so if *most* of the county has an alternative provider and could switch to it, then that keeps prices down for everyone in the county.

      Of course, every point I just listed is wrong, but that's what the FCC decided to (pretend to?) believe. This happens to be good news for the existing ISPs, which can raise their prices in every case where the FCC's assumptions are wrong.

    2. Re:C student in English by Wizardess · · Score: 1

      Swamp the FCC with complaints.
      {o.o}

    3. Re:C student in English by vandamme · · Score: 1

      I presume each customer is provided a half mile of fiber to connect to a competitor if they wish.

  10. Re:just move by Logger · · Score: 2

    These rural places also mostly support this kind of laissez faire approach to regulation. Which means they are either getting what they want or what they deserve. Either they'll like the results, in which case neither they or us have anything to complain about, or if they don't maybe they'll decide there is some value to good regulation.

  11. Re:just move by olsmeister · · Score: 1

    Wow, you can't bring common sense like that to this type of debate. Come on, man.

  12. Priorities by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Priorities by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Look at why most migration (legal and otherwise) occurs... It is due to disparity of conditions between the source and destination country, where the migrant is planning to have a significantly higher quality of life in the destination country.

      Legal migration then actually hurts the source country, because legal migration is typically only available to the top percentages of a population (smartest, best educated, richest etc)... If you allow the smartest people from a poor country to migrate to a richer country for better personal conditions, you are left with those of lower intelligence remaining in the poor country, which then contributes towards the country remaining poor.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:Priorities by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Look at why most migration (legal and otherwise) occurs... It is due to disparity of conditions between the source and destination country, where the migrant is planning to have a significantly higher quality of life in the destination country.

      And in the absence of any movement at all in really low unemployment numbers what this quality of life for the person equates to is GDP growth for the nation. Thank you immigrant friend for boosting our economy.

    4. Re:Priorities by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it generally benefits the destination country - at the expense of the source country, which only serves to fuel further migration. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  13. This is why the Republicans by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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/
  14. Re:just move by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  15. Re:just move by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    The people may politically vote that way, and talk the talk, but in reality they are very dependent on regulations. You will often see many exceptions on "anti-socialism" bills that seem to target farmers.

    Just because you may disagree with their politics, it doesn't mean they shouldn't benefit from regulations just because they didn't vote for it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  16. Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought it was mostly because the last mile infrastructure is so expensive that if there is an incumbent other companies don't want to risk that major investment.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People aren't blaming government because this claim is false.

      The $3 dollar surcharge on my ISP (which does no other business but internet) labeled "exclusive access fee" is proof in the opposite direction.

      My city council sold exclusive access to two ISPs, one for DSL, and one for cable. No other wired ISPs are allowed within the city limits.

    5. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You need to explain the economics, to make sense. Existing company, with existing infrastructure has largely paid off it's debt and has raised it's price as high as economically possible (supply and demand without competition). New company can undercut that, but needs to borrow money, to start building. So it borrows money and now needs to generate revenue to pay off debt and undercuts the incumbent monopoly because big fat margins of the incumbent. The incumbent, then drops prices to below the new competitor, depriving of new customers to pay it's debt. The incumbent keeps prices low, until failure to repay debt cripples the new competitor and they go belly up. The incumbent buys them for fire sale prices, claim it charges to little and says of if doesn't charge more it will also go bankrupt and raises straight back up to the maximum. When a big enough competitor who can fight through that comes along, they simply pay of corrupt politicians to keep the competitor out by denying them access. USA capitalism.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      There wouldn't be any ISPs in these areas in a market free of regulation.

    7. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Last I checked it is essentially impossible to run lines through public and private properties, through towns, across rivers, etc without being granted permission by state/county/city government and doing is disruptive so the party they allow to do it has what amounts to a government granted monopoly.

    8. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      The issue is cities tapping those lines. Unlike sewer lines, the internet carries speech and corruption within community level law enforcement is quite common. In my home town the police and their friends would literally drag race around the town square at 3am.

    9. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked governments actually grant permits when you apply for them, since that's a significant fundraising stream for smaller cities and towns.

      Also, rejection of a permit can be appealed, to either city/town entities or the courts, where winning would be easy since the rejection was arbitrary and as a bonus, that would fund a chunk of your new ISP's rollout.

    10. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Because AT&T, Verizon and all the established telecoms have such a stellar track record when it comes to snooping on people's data.

    11. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      AT&T, Verizon, and the established telecoms snoop on your data sure and pass it to the NSA which might blackmail you with it. Local police and city officials are an entirely different animal far more likely to bother normal people early and often.

    12. Re:Why do people keep blaming the market for this? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Right, which is why google couldn't even manage to build out fiber beyond the one test city even with the city TRYING to let them.

  17. Re:Sounds like an opportunity by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

    (*) 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...)

    US should stick solely to their own hemisphere. Only reason ISIS even appeared is that US and Britain toppled all more or less sane governments in middle east just so they could get a better deal on oil.

  18. Re:just move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But there is need for a chicken coop to have a competitively priced web presence.

    Just because it's not a market that you're in doesn't mean it's irrelevent. I had a contract for a cotton futures trading company recently. It's not something I'd even heard of before... but I wear cotton shirts and I eat chicken. For the people that make those things possible and profitable: they need to run their businesses well.

  19. The devil is in the details here... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:The devil is in the details here... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Only if you pretend an ISP would extend their network that 1/2 mile to service new customers.....who would suddenly be getting "great" deals from their incumbent ISP as soon as the competitor filed for permits, guaranteeing that 1/2 mile extension is a loss.

    2. Re:The devil is in the details here... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      But my point is, the FCC still has price controls for those outside the 1/2 limits. They didn't totally abandon price controls for everybody with a single provider, just some of them.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:The devil is in the details here... by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    4. Re:The devil is in the details here... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      My point is the headline is misleading as the new rule only effects a subset of ISP customers nation wide not all of us.

      I'm not arguing to justify or vilify the FCC's actions, only point out that they are not changing anything for the majority of people out there.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:The devil is in the details here... by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      This does, however open the market to create a sham ISP that rents a line from the ISP with a local monopoly. This new ISP then "offers service" to one house every 1600/sqrt(2) meters in a grid. The service can be poor quality or exorbitant; it doesn't matter. The point is not to actually serve that customer.

      Then, everyone is within 800m of a place with "competition," and the real ISP set prices without restriction.

  20. Re:just move by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Yea, rural shitholes like Los Angeles.

  21. Half a mile by iTrawl · · Score: 1

    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
  22. Ignorance proven by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Ignorance proven by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      So, what would you do in order to encourage the actual competition? By saying a half-mile, you need about 20 individual customers to justify a line extension in suburbia, improving access. If you can get 30 you are golden. Sure, if it is a half-mile for 3-5 subscribers it is hard to justify still, but the more penetration you have the more options there are for everyone.

      The anti-competitive practices might need some regulation though...

    2. Re:Ignorance proven by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Funny

      WTF? Has the government been proceeding with their ears plugged for the past decade?

      It's difficult to hear with all that lobbyist money stuffed in your ears.

    3. Re:Ignorance proven by Wizardess · · Score: 1

      I am sitting here 200' from neighors ON ALL SIDES, that have a sort of real "high speed", by antiquated FCC definitions, choice, DSL or Charter Spectrum. I am 1/4 mile from the nearest FIOS connection. I have no market I can call upon for alternatives. I am too far away from their poles to serve. It's the bane of a large piece of land in the middle of a sea of 60'x140' lots. The state cannot do anything, not that it would being California, because the FCC has preempted the field. And the FCC will not act because it is deep into the pockets of the big boys who are refusing to sell me, even at a premium price, any decent fast Internet service. I'm stuck on noisy wires with ADSL at 7 mbps nominal down and 768 kbs nominal up when the damn fool lines are quiet enough for the ADSL to work.

      {+,+} Bleah! The FCC is a premier Swamp Dweller.

  23. To paraphrase Arthur Dent: by cybersquid · · Score: 1

    "Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'competitive' that I wasn't previously aware of."

  24. Re:just move by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    Food? No. That would be if you fed them to pigs, which is totally legal and would not run afoul of the regulations. He was raising worms, not food. Unless you eat them, in which case I'll bring my own food for dinner.

    I'd need a couple of hours of your time to explain the complex machinations (which I don't completely understand myself), but tl/dr is that because he WASN'T selling the worms as food, he became a "waste processing facility" by some definitions but not others. Under some code, the worms were livestock. He needed some of the permitting and zoning for waste processing AND some of the permitting and zoning for livestock. The entities that saw his operation differently had to be made to see eye-to-eye, which took quite a bit of doing. It took him the better part of a year to get all sorted out, and then he still had to deal with a certain big US company that is almost as bad, bureaucracy wise. Because even though he was a one-man operation who was hauling away their cafeteria waste, he was a "vendor" and had to go through the same processes as someone providing photolithography equipment. Oops, tangent.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  25. Re:just move by pnutjam · · Score: 2

    Most of those regulations are free market regulations, the gov isn't always the bad guy.

  26. Re:just move by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

    These are places were your food is grown.
    Despite looking like a painting from the 1800's With fields of produce, and livestock. Modern farms are actually often more High Tech then most Silicon Valley offices. With Robots, Self Driving Vehicles, Big Data analytics, real time market access.... Much of this all done over the farmers phone, when he is taking a 5 minute break from shoving crap.
    Affordable High Speed Internet is key for rural areas.

    Not to mention agriculture is a HUGE use of drone surveillance - often to measure irrigation, weeds, and other properties, as well as satellite imagery.

    These rural places also mostly support this kind of laissez faire approach to regulation. Which means they are either getting what they want or what they deserve. Either they'll like the results, in which case neither they or us have anything to complain about, or if they don't maybe they'll decide there is some value to good regulation

    Except when receiving tons of farm subsidies. You want to know why Trump is harping on Canadian dairy? It's because in the US and Europe, dairy prices have crashed. They are making so much of it that if it wasn't for farm subsidies, they'd be out of business because the price is lower than the price of production.

    Thus they see the higher prices for dairy in Canada as a savior, but then again, it'll likely collapse the prices and more farmers are out of business.

  27. Re:just move by omnichad · · Score: 2

    There's no reason to cram everyone into a dense urban center if so many people can work remotely from the comfort of home with no resource-wasting commutes.

    You're the one with the backward way of thinking and this is a huge reason why rural broadband is so important.

  28. Re:Sounds like an opportunity by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Informative

    How come we never hear any Democrat candidates harp on this issue?

    How many votes would it get them? Or a Republican candidate, for that matter? Probably only a rounding error, especially since this ruling just happened and it's going to take some time for these ISPs to exploit the situation enough to attract attention.

    So instead of campaigning on this narrow issue that isn't upsetting many people (yet), make it broader like repealing the laws banning municipal broadband and/or going after companies like Verizon that failed to live up to their service commitments.

    Much better economy

    Except it isn't much better. It's a continuation of the recovery from 2008. You'll notice there's been no inflection points you can point to where a trend reversed. Also, you're ignoring the problem we've had for the last 20 years - the vast majority of voters aren't benefiting from that better economy. Wages are flat or down depending on industry, so run-of-the-mill voters aren't particularly excited that investment bankers are making more money.

    end of ISIS

    They're actually still around....and not being attacked by US or US-backed forces. Assad and the Russians are the ones fighting them. We aren't talking about them because it's not US bombs falling on them.

    getting our allies to pay more for their own defense

    They're continuing to follow the commitments they made to George W Bush. There has been no change.

    renegotiating trade deals with EU and Mexico

    There's no trade deal with the EU.

    The deal with Mexico is actually a US-Canada-Mexico deal, so it's not done yet either.....also nothing has been announced about that not-quite-deal that is an improvement over NAFTA, so I'm not sure why you're celebrating NAFTA version 1.2. Oooh! Now we renegotiate every 6 years instead of renegotiating whenever we want to.....hurray!!

    defunding terrorism by defunding Iran

    The branches of Islamic terrorism that attacked the US is funded by the Saudis, and Trump is giving the Saudis more money and guns.

    tax rebates

    No tax rebates have been passed. There's a massive tax cut, but it's insignificant to the vast majority of taxpayers.....and it also should result in everyone laughing at Republicans when they start crying about the deficit again.

    It's almost like you guys have a media environment designed to misinform you.....

  29. Re:Sounds like an opportunity by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    To be fair, those governments weren't terribly sane. They were brutal dictators. ....who were in power because the French and British drew more-or-less random borders in the former Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, creating countries that were utterly ungovernable by anyone other than brutal dictators.

  30. And just think by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  31. Re:just move by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    I don't know enough about the business to have an opinion on that article - but yes, that is very much the sentiment I was trying to express. There are good regulations and bad regulations. Farmers (in my limited experience) aren't anti-regulation, they are anti-bad-regulation.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  32. Re:In other news, by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Government can now declare fruit is a vegetable

    Intelligence is knowing that the tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put one in a fruit salad.

  33. Re:In other news, by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Truth isn't truth.

    Contradictions aren't contradictions?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  34. Re:just move by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    Those worm farms can be mighty hazardous.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  35. Density by thegreatbob · · Score: 2

    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...
  36. Re:just move by sjames · · Score: 2

    In the U.S., if you do that, telecomms companies, even ones that were asked and explicitly refused to serve an area come out of the woodwork and sue for any stupid excuse they can find.

  37. Re:There's competitive, and then there's competiiv by NeoTubNinja · · Score: 2

    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.

  38. Re:just move by shaitand · · Score: 1

    I fail to see how this is even remotely possible. In the past decade milk has gone from $2/gal to $6+/gal.

  39. Re:just move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where the hell do you live?
    Milk is currently $1.89 per gallon at my local big box grocery store. Even the boutique dairy in the next county is only $3.00 per gallon.
    7/11 is $2.75

  40. What I keep wondering is by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    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/
  41. Re:In other news, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We've always been in a trade war with Canada.

  42. Irony alert! by sjames · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the new world where one choice is competitive. Newspeak brought to you by the GOP.

    1. Re:Irony alert! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Well, it DIDN't happen under the Democrats, it *IS* happening under the GOP. Newspeak, right here, right now.

  43. Re:Sounds like an opportunity by meglon · · Score: 2

    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*)

    Yep, there's a lot of worthless fucking fascists in this country that are stupider than ratshit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  44. Re:Sounds like an opportunity by meglon · · Score: 2

    Well to be fair, he can't really see anything while he's down on his knees in front of dipshit Trump, so he just has to listen to the dipshits lying to him from Fauxnews.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  45. Re:just move by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Probably Canada

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  46. Re:just move by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Yes, let's. It won't take long for them to decide bullets are more important than internet this month.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  47. Re:In other news, by mrbester · · Score: 1

    So Maine with its state vegetable, the watermelon, has no intelligence?

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  48. Welp good thing I'm not a SJW by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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/
  49. Re:just move by jythie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  50. Re:Sounds like an opportunity by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

    They weren't worse than Napoleon or Robespierre and were products of society of their countries. Also, black PR is part of arsenal of those imperialist powers, so we shouldn't take anything related to middle east at face value, including that statement that they were "brutal dictators". Only actions and outcomes matter, and practice shows that everyone who isn't blatantly incompetent "islamic" fanatic gets targeted by coups and assassinations. This must stop for there to be any chance of recovery.

  51. Re:just move by shaitand · · Score: 2

    https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Organic-Vitamin-D-Milk-1-Gallon/44391006

    Shows as $5.68/gal here in Dallas. The non-organic is $1.49 but it expires in a week or less whereas this has an expiration date over a month out. Milk you'd want to give a human like Fairlife is more.

  52. Re: just move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You really need to stop using that excuse. It's not relevant. If there is a road and a phone line, there can be fiber. A fiber connection is going to cost what it's going to cost, but that doesn't mean you can't do it yourself if nobody else will do it for you.

  53. Re:just move by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Well, in that case they should definitely let people who live in the city and have no idea how to farm tell them how to manage their land :)

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  54. It's not just about votes by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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/
  55. Re:In other news, by shaitand · · Score: 1

    Feminism is the push for gender equality.

  56. Re:In other news, by shaitand · · Score: 1

    Education is knowing that tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put on in a fruit salad again. Intelligence is having the ability to anticipate putting one in a fruit salad wouldn't be a good plan then trying it anyway.

  57. Re:In other news, by Indiana+Joe · · Score: 1

    Charisma is being able to sell a tomato-based fruit salad as, "salsa." (Yes, I'm familiar with this meme.)

    --
    I can't decide if this post is interesting, funny, insightful, or flamebait.
  58. Re:just move by jythie · · Score: 2

    Well yes. Those 'people in cities' spend decades developing specialized skills that give them knowledge and insight farmers do not have the time or reason to learn. The majority of the skills that go into that high level management and planning are completely useless when it comes to everyday operation of running an agribusiness, and vice versa.

  59. Re:just move by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Correct - and I say this as one of those city folk - that's why there is such a disconnect... there is just such a huge difference in point of view between city and rural. And not just on farm regulations.... pick an issue! Find me a rural vegan. Gun control is fairly pointless in rural areas as they have little problem with gun homicides. Environmentalism is viewed very differently by people who live and work with nature vs. people who don't see why anyone should need or want to "defile" it. For that matter, while you'll have no problem finding people in the city who support recycling food waste, they have no interest in making it cost effective to do so even though they hold all the reins of power.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  60. Re:In other news, by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Intelligence is knowing that the tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put one in a fruit salad.

    Charisma is selling someone a tomato salad.

  61. Re:just move by shaitand · · Score: 1

    Yes and no. We have a baby so reviewed milk prices not too far back (3-4 months). Anywhere from $2-3 gallon for the non-organic was the norm. If anything the drop is more extreme.

  62. Re:There's competitive, and then there's competiiv by shaitand · · Score: 1

    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.