
FCC can define markets with only one ISP as “competitive,” court rules - rbanffy
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/fcc-can-define-markets-with-only-one-isp-as-competitive-court-rules/
======
ars
This title is incorrect.

They are arguing over whether the presence of a competitor within 1/2 mile
counts as competition even though the competitor has not actually started
service to the customer.

i.e. does the customer actually need two services? Or is the presence of
another one very close by, enough to be considered as competition? (The
assumption being that they would/could expand to the customer.)

Better title:

FCC can define markets with only one ISP as “competitive,”, if there is
another ISP within 1/2 mile, court rules

~~~
s73v3r_
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.

~~~
ars
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
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.

------
alphabettsy
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.

~~~
ars
> 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.

~~~
MBCook
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
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
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
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.

------
djrogers
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.

~~~
Someone1234
> 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
> 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
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
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
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.

------
rectang
Thanks to the Eighth Circuit for this "business-friendly" decision which is
friendly to a handful of mammoth telecoms and unfriendly to all other
businesses.

------
tomohawk
The folly of having the FCC regulate this stuff instead of the FTC. The FCC
has always been cozy with the big guys.

