4 ms·

I know it’s mostly about wording and legalese, but it’s disappointing that this is where we are now. I don’t think we should be able to redefine things that wo

I know it’s mostly about wording and legalese, but it’s disappointing that this is where we are now. I don’t think we should be able to redefine things that would be outside any reasonable expectation. No reasonable person would call a monopoly market a competitive one, but here we are. If they were going to change something then get rid of the competition requirement instead of changing the definition to absurdity.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
smolder 8y ago
Yeah, great example of this is "freedom of speech" being contorted to mean freedom of expression through any means, including spending money. Protecting other forms of self-expression by calling them "speech" is a good end by strange means. Money as speech is a unique bag of worms.
ars 8y ago
> No reasonable person would call a monopoly market a competitive one, but here we are. 1/2 a mile is pretty close - I don't see how you can call that a monopoly.
- Guvante 8y ago
  Depends on how expensive it is to run the line for that 1/2 mile.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  If I can't get service, then the other provider isn't relevant to me.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Does a customer have a choice of providers? If the answer is no, there is no competition in fact, no matter what fictitious label the FCC is allowed to apply. By this standard, a square grid, of arbitrary size, consisting of single provider zones with each zone having a side length of up to 1 mile would be, at every point, a “competitive market” even though literally no customer in the market would have a choice in providers.
- MBCook 8y ago
  If you only have one choice, how is it NOT a monopoly? This leads to the odd result that a city could be highly ‘competitive’, in which there are always many choices within 1/2 mile... but no individual home has any choice at all. A perfectly competitive monopolistic oligopoly.
  - gojomo 8y ago
    For a business, there's always choice. There's broadband via wireless. With enough investment, dedicated wires or point-to-point wireless could be run. It's just a matter of "not yet cheap enough". Well, if you let the price mechanism work, the juicy profits will attract other providers. Almost no place in the world had "retail broadband" just 30 years ago. By the current ever-changing escalation of what "broadband" is, almost no place had it 20 years ago, either. But profits in bringing it places where it didn't already exist has brought it almost everywhere. And with 2+ providers in most places. Let prices float, and it'll keep expanding. Replace profit-seeking with price-caps and regulatory judgements, and it'll slow down, and be at the mercy of dumb sloganeering politics.
    - alphabettsy 8y ago
      I’m not sure where you live and how it is in your area, but the majority of the country living outside a major metro has one choice for high-speed that isn’t DSL or LTE. This is also true for people renting or leasing in multi-unit buildings where the owner has chosen a provider. The last three places I lived had only one wired broadband provider.
      - gojomo 8y ago
        DSL, LTE, and cable are 3 choices, and that's residential. Business districts often have other, higher-priced choices... and for businesses where high-speed is high-value, they can always pay more for a custom set-up. The "majority of the country" (by area) is only 20% of the population. 80% of the population lives in urban areas. At the 10Mbps downlink threshold – enough for 2-3 separate Netflix streams – over 90% of the country has at least 2 wired choices, and wireless also keeps improving.
gojomo 8y ago
But it's also not-quite-right to call these situations a monopoly, except via arbitrary shifting definitions of what "broadband" is to rule out valid options. There's always other options for internet access - probably 2 or more wireless providers, satellite downlink with slower uplinks, and, for businesses where high-bandwidth is a necessity, investing in their own wires/point-to-point links. These are all "simply a matter of cost" – and businesses can make these cost-decisions in their own expenditures and even choices of where to locate operations. Further, if uncontrolled prices lead to excess profits in these areas, that's exactly the mechanism to draw in competitors. Regulatory price caps mean to potential competitors, "why bother?" Excess profits instead create a juicy target for upstarts, creating the desired competition.
wrecursion 8y ago
> I don’t think we should be able to redefine things that would be outside any reasonable expectation. Like... 'Unlimited Internet' but with limits. Lots of limits actually. If you really want to get crazy.. dive into the rabbit hole of U.S. Legislation/Bill naming.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

smolder 8y ago

Yeah, great example of this is "freedom of speech" being contorted to mean freedom of expression through any means, including spending money. Protecting other forms of self-expression by calling them "speech" is a good end by strange means. Money as speech is a unique bag of worms.

ars 8y ago

> No reasonable person would call a monopoly market a competitive one, but here we are. 1/2 a mile is pretty close - I don't see how you can call that a monopoly.

Guvante 8y ago
Depends on how expensive it is to run the line for that 1/2 mile.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
If I can't get service, then the other provider isn't relevant to me.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Does a customer have a choice of providers? If the answer is no, there is no competition in fact, no matter what fictitious label the FCC is allowed to apply. By this standard, a square grid, of arbitrary size, consisting of single provider zones with each zone having a side length of up to 1 mile would be, at every point, a “competitive market” even though literally no customer in the market would have a choice in providers.
MBCook 8y ago
If you only have one choice, how is it NOT a monopoly? This leads to the odd result that a city could be highly ‘competitive’, in which there are always many choices within 1/2 mile... but no individual home has any choice at all. A perfectly competitive monopolistic oligopoly.
- gojomo 8y ago
  For a business, there's always choice. There's broadband via wireless. With enough investment, dedicated wires or point-to-point wireless could be run. It's just a matter of "not yet cheap enough". Well, if you let the price mechanism work, the juicy profits will attract other providers. Almost no place in the world had "retail broadband" just 30 years ago. By the current ever-changing escalation of what "broadband" is, almost no place had it 20 years ago, either. But profits in bringing it places where it didn't already exist has brought it almost everywhere. And with 2+ providers in most places. Let prices float, and it'll keep expanding. Replace profit-seeking with price-caps and regulatory judgements, and it'll slow down, and be at the mercy of dumb sloganeering politics.
  - alphabettsy 8y ago
    I’m not sure where you live and how it is in your area, but the majority of the country living outside a major metro has one choice for high-speed that isn’t DSL or LTE. This is also true for people renting or leasing in multi-unit buildings where the owner has chosen a provider. The last three places I lived had only one wired broadband provider.
    - gojomo 8y ago
      DSL, LTE, and cable are 3 choices, and that's residential. Business districts often have other, higher-priced choices... and for businesses where high-speed is high-value, they can always pay more for a custom set-up. The "majority of the country" (by area) is only 20% of the population. 80% of the population lives in urban areas. At the 10Mbps downlink threshold – enough for 2-3 separate Netflix streams – over 90% of the country has at least 2 wired choices, and wireless also keeps improving.

gojomo 8y ago

But it's also not-quite-right to call these situations a monopoly, except via arbitrary shifting definitions of what "broadband" is to rule out valid options. There's always other options for internet access - probably 2 or more wireless providers, satellite downlink with slower uplinks, and, for businesses where high-bandwidth is a necessity, investing in their own wires/point-to-point links. These are all "simply a matter of cost" – and businesses can make these cost-decisions in their own expenditures and even choices of where to locate operations. Further, if uncontrolled prices lead to excess profits in these areas, that's exactly the mechanism to draw in competitors. Regulatory price caps mean to potential competitors, "why bother?" Excess profits instead create a juicy target for upstarts, creating the desired competition.

wrecursion 8y ago

> I don’t think we should be able to redefine things that would be outside any reasonable expectation. Like... 'Unlimited Internet' but with limits. Lots of limits actually. If you really want to get crazy.. dive into the rabbit hole of U.S. Legislation/Bill naming.