5 ms·

If I can't buy service from that other provider, then they don't count as competition. I can't threaten to leave my current ISP to get a better price, and you c

If I can't buy service from that other provider, then they don't count as competition. I can't threaten to leave my current ISP to get a better price, and you can be sure that they know that.

dwheeler 8y ago
100% agree. If I can't get service from someone else, it doesn't matter if it's 1/2 mile or 100 miles away - there is no competition. Even if there is "someone else" that may not be enough. It the "alternative" cannot support video (such as YouTube and Netflix), or can't upload my data at a reasonable speed, it isn't really a competitor.
ars 8y ago
It's not about you as an individual, it's about the market and if it's realistic for the competitor to enter it. If it is, the incumbent will be more restrained in their prices, to avoid inducing the competitor to enter that market. That's basically the crux of the matter, and the judge rules both ways of looking at things are reasonable since no one knows the future.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  For last-mile infrastructure, anything between "just out of range" and "50 miles out of range" is of similar difficulty to expand into. It's realistic to imagine a competitor could expand, but it's a far cry from actual competition. These half-mile ranges shouldn't be lumped in with locations that have choices.
paulddraper 8y ago
> If I can't buy service from that other provider, then they don't count as competition. Right. Businesses are often currently wired for only one ISP. And the question is: "Can I buy future service from the other guy?" It's a fuzzy question, because you can essentially always buy service...for some amount of money. The evidence presented (and deemed credible by the court) is that ISPs will frequently build connections for businesses up to one mile away. And most of the businesses in question were less than half a mile away. And so the court ruled that the FCC could choose to call the market competitive, based on that evidence. It's an unsatisfyingly fuzzy question, with perhaps an equally unsatisfying answer.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No, not really. If that amount of money is ludicrously expensive, then no, I can't buy service from the competitor.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    Right. And supposedly, you can buy for a non-ludicrous amount for up to a mile away.
adrianratnapala 8y ago
It's pretty standard practice for competition regulators around the world to think about whether new competitors could enter a market. As it ought to be, since that is a real check on the behaviour of the incumbent. Now this might apply poorly to ISPs where there are all kinds of frictions and potential barriers to entry, so maybe the regulator is getting this one wrong. But the court decided not to wade into an argument that is more about economics than law. We could have laws where there was less regulatory discretion. But they would need to be written differently, and as a society we would have to just accept that they will sometimes throw up absurd results in corner-cases.

If I can't buy service from that other provider, then they don't count as competition. I can't threaten to leave my current ISP to get a better price, and you can be sure that they know that.

dwheeler 8y ago

100% agree. If I can't get service from someone else, it doesn't matter if it's 1/2 mile or 100 miles away - there is no competition. Even if there is "someone else" that may not be enough. It the "alternative" cannot support video (such as YouTube and Netflix), or can't upload my data at a reasonable speed, it isn't really a competitor.

ars 8y ago

It's not about you as an individual, it's about the market and if it's realistic for the competitor to enter it. If it is, the incumbent will be more restrained in their prices, to avoid inducing the competitor to enter that market. That's basically the crux of the matter, and the judge rules both ways of looking at things are reasonable since no one knows the future.

Dylan16807 8y ago
For last-mile infrastructure, anything between "just out of range" and "50 miles out of range" is of similar difficulty to expand into. It's realistic to imagine a competitor could expand, but it's a far cry from actual competition. These half-mile ranges shouldn't be lumped in with locations that have choices.

paulddraper 8y ago

> If I can't buy service from that other provider, then they don't count as competition. Right. Businesses are often currently wired for only one ISP. And the question is: "Can I buy future service from the other guy?" It's a fuzzy question, because you can essentially always buy service...for some amount of money. The evidence presented (and deemed credible by the court) is that ISPs will frequently build connections for businesses up to one mile away. And most of the businesses in question were less than half a mile away. And so the court ruled that the FCC could choose to call the market competitive, based on that evidence. It's an unsatisfyingly fuzzy question, with perhaps an equally unsatisfying answer.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
No, not really. If that amount of money is ludicrously expensive, then no, I can't buy service from the competitor.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  Right. And supposedly, you can buy for a non-ludicrous amount for up to a mile away.

adrianratnapala 8y ago

It's pretty standard practice for competition regulators around the world to think about whether new competitors could enter a market. As it ought to be, since that is a real check on the behaviour of the incumbent. Now this might apply poorly to ISPs where there are all kinds of frictions and potential barriers to entry, so maybe the regulator is getting this one wrong. But the court decided not to wade into an argument that is more about economics than law. We could have laws where there was less regulatory discretion. But they would need to be written differently, and as a society we would have to just accept that they will sometimes throw up absurd results in corner-cases.