5 ms·

This is specifically related to business internet price caps, and the court said the FCC has the right to define the boundary for 'competitive' as being within

This is specifically related to business internet price caps, and the court said the FCC has the right to define the boundary for 'competitive' as being within 1/2 mile of a competitor. Yes, it's not logical, and it's nonsensical, but it's not exactly as dire as the headline makes it sound, and it doesn't relate to residential broadband.

downrightmike 8y ago
"and it doesn't relate to residential broadband" yet.
Someone1234 8y ago
> it doesn't relate to residential broadband. Yes it does. The precedent set by this applies to every case within the 8th Circuit, which was: > But the FCC may rationally choose which evidence to believe among conflicting evidence in its proceedings, especially when predicting what will happen in the markets under its jurisdiction. The FCC being able to pick which evidence to consider and which to ignore absolutely impacts residential broadband.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > The FCC being able to pick which evidence to consider and which to ignore absolutely impacts residential broadband. Not that I agree with what was chosen here, but if multiple pieces of evidence are reviewed and they conflict in their findings, they have to choose one in their ruling, right? Technically no matter the decision, they would technically be "ignoring" evidence because the outcome didn't agree with it, correct? It's not ignored, just not believed as much as other evidence from what I gather.
  - Retric 8y ago
    You can and should consider conflicting information without ignoring anything. Generally it’s a sign of less accurate information or a poor model. Ignore information at will and you can support any conclusion.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      If I read the article correctly (lots of spin, little facts), by that definition of "ignore", they didn't ignore the evidence, they disagreed compared to other evidence. Given conflicting evidence, you have to choose which is right. That is not "ignoring" anything (hence why I put it in quotes), but sadly people use these incorrect/loaded words because they disagree with the decision.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Once a person's or organization's stated goal is to reach a specific conclusion their methods become suspect. Forcing them to specifically deal with all information is not going to change the outcome, but it does make their biases more clear.
rayiner 8y ago
You might not agree with the result, but it’s not “nonsensical.” The idea that whole counties are not competitive despite the presence of multiple competitors within the county presupposes that ISPs can segment markets on a block-by-block level. There is a lot of real evidence that they cannot do that in practice. For example, in the residential context, Comcast has better pricing and no data caps in markets where they compete with FiOS, even though any given household in those markets may not have access to both services.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  There's also lots of evidence that they can do that. There are a number of places where people on one side of a street have access to a competitor, and thus are able to get better rates.
gowld 8y ago
Why is it not logical or sensical? The FCC presented evidence that ISPS will often build up to a mile of wire reach new customers of these high-value service contracts. > not exactly as dire as the headline makes it sound, ArsTechnica. I can't recall the last time one of their political articles (which are the vast majority of ArsTechinca articles that ones that reach HN and Reddit frontpage) was an honest explanation of the situation covered in the article.
- phil21 8y ago
  > The FCC presented evidence that ISPS will often build up to a mile of wire reach new customers of these high-value service contracts. That is an extremely bold statement, and obviously both technically accurate and utterly misleading on its face. Sure providers will build out a half mile of fiber to you. For $50k. Exceedingly few are doing a build out for a single corporate customer for free. I've been involved in build-outs where the customer simply moved offices to a lit building because the build-out costs were more expensive than eating an early termination fee on a lease. Not sure how that is remotely competitive. It's about as close to outright lying to the court as you can get without actually doing so, in my estimation.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Ehh, I don't buy that. Being within 1/2 mile doesn't matter if you can't actually purchase service. And I can't imagine that they're going to leave this with business class internet, and not also apply it as precedent for residential internet.

downrightmike 8y ago

"and it doesn't relate to residential broadband" yet.

Someone1234 8y ago

> it doesn't relate to residential broadband. Yes it does. The precedent set by this applies to every case within the 8th Circuit, which was: > But the FCC may rationally choose which evidence to believe among conflicting evidence in its proceedings, especially when predicting what will happen in the markets under its jurisdiction. The FCC being able to pick which evidence to consider and which to ignore absolutely impacts residential broadband.

kodablah 8y ago
> The FCC being able to pick which evidence to consider and which to ignore absolutely impacts residential broadband. Not that I agree with what was chosen here, but if multiple pieces of evidence are reviewed and they conflict in their findings, they have to choose one in their ruling, right? Technically no matter the decision, they would technically be "ignoring" evidence because the outcome didn't agree with it, correct? It's not ignored, just not believed as much as other evidence from what I gather.
- Retric 8y ago
  You can and should consider conflicting information without ignoring anything. Generally it’s a sign of less accurate information or a poor model. Ignore information at will and you can support any conclusion.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    If I read the article correctly (lots of spin, little facts), by that definition of "ignore", they didn't ignore the evidence, they disagreed compared to other evidence. Given conflicting evidence, you have to choose which is right. That is not "ignoring" anything (hence why I put it in quotes), but sadly people use these incorrect/loaded words because they disagree with the decision.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Once a person's or organization's stated goal is to reach a specific conclusion their methods become suspect. Forcing them to specifically deal with all information is not going to change the outcome, but it does make their biases more clear.

rayiner 8y ago

You might not agree with the result, but it’s not “nonsensical.” The idea that whole counties are not competitive despite the presence of multiple competitors within the county presupposes that ISPs can segment markets on a block-by-block level. There is a lot of real evidence that they cannot do that in practice. For example, in the residential context, Comcast has better pricing and no data caps in markets where they compete with FiOS, even though any given household in those markets may not have access to both services.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
There's also lots of evidence that they can do that. There are a number of places where people on one side of a street have access to a competitor, and thus are able to get better rates.

gowld 8y ago

Why is it not logical or sensical? The FCC presented evidence that ISPS will often build up to a mile of wire reach new customers of these high-value service contracts. > not exactly as dire as the headline makes it sound, ArsTechnica. I can't recall the last time one of their political articles (which are the vast majority of ArsTechinca articles that ones that reach HN and Reddit frontpage) was an honest explanation of the situation covered in the article.

phil21 8y ago
> The FCC presented evidence that ISPS will often build up to a mile of wire reach new customers of these high-value service contracts. That is an extremely bold statement, and obviously both technically accurate and utterly misleading on its face. Sure providers will build out a half mile of fiber to you. For $50k. Exceedingly few are doing a build out for a single corporate customer for free. I've been involved in build-outs where the customer simply moved offices to a lit building because the build-out costs were more expensive than eating an early termination fee on a lease. Not sure how that is remotely competitive. It's about as close to outright lying to the court as you can get without actually doing so, in my estimation.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Ehh, I don't buy that. Being within 1/2 mile doesn't matter if you can't actually purchase service. And I can't imagine that they're going to leave this with business class internet, and not also apply it as precedent for residential internet.