US Court of Appeals rules that the FCC can consider areas with only a single ISP 'competitive'

[Aux101]

The face this guy makes, in the first image, is reminding of those criminals who, despite a ton of evidence, will try to innocent themselves.

 

[Ben Myers]

In the US, compared to the UK, a combination of state, federal and local government ignorance means that in a large percentage of US cities and towns, there is one and only one broadband internet provider. For example, in my town, Charter/Spectrum was given the local monopoly, so they built out the fiber optic cable all over town, and they have held this monopoly for about 20 years. If you want to compete with broadband in my town, you have to duplicate Charter's fiber network, very expensive. In the next town, Comcast has the monopoly. Broadband internet access has been walled off into local monopolies with the same pricing offered by all monopolies, EXPENSIVE! I pay $US 139 monthly for very fast broadband and very awful television channels. In a nearby town, Verizon was foolish enough to build out its FIOS broadband in competition with the incumbent Comcast. Now, smart people in that town sign up for 2 years of "new customer" discounted broadband with Comcast at $US 79, then they switch to Verizon at the same price on a 2-year new customer deal. Wash, rinse, repeat. Wherever there are two or more broadband providers in a municipality, there is competition and better pricing.

There isn’t enough information here. I would say that if there is an infrastructure that exists for another provider to be able to provide an internet service then the area is competitive. I’m not sure how it works in the USA but in the U.K. if there is a line to a property then any provider can take it so long as it connects to hardware that they own or rent at the local exchange. Also you have companies who own the only network to one area and will often sell both directly to customers and wholesale to third party retailers. In those situations it might appear like you have a choice but you don’t really, it’s all the same network with prices fixed by the network owner and your retailer adding their cut.

The companies people can buy internet off who simply buy connections from a wholesale provider can appear and disappear very easily and quickly without any hardware or infrastructure changes so I actually kind of agree with the initial ruling. In most cases you can set up a new service provider without leaving your desk. But that’s only fine as long as the owners of a local network will wholesale their service at reasonable rates to competitors. Which is where the FCC need to ensure competition is possible. And I believe that currently that is the case.

 

[wiyosaya]

Wherever there are two or more broadband providers in a municipality, there is competition and better pricing.

Unfortunately, there are not enough areas where there are two or more broadband providers. After reading just how the FCC is currently defining areas where there is competition, as outlined in the link to the decision in a previous post to this thread, it sounds like the FCC is making their decision based on entirely arbitrary information. There does not seem to be any clear science to it or clear methodology that would rely on just how much it takes to establish infrastructure from the standpoint of a competing ISP.

Most people have more than one isp and don't know it. Cellphone companies are isps. Satellite companies have isps. Cable, of course, has isps. The small microwave companies are isps. This law is the death knell for pcs, because nearly all of them must be hooked up to cable, satellite, or microwave tech. Very few PCs use Cellphone companies and this law is forcing consumers into the arms of those companies.

After having become completely fed up with being blamed for what are clearly issues at Spectrum, I have researched my options in the cellular "data only" ISP arena.

Sprint - 50GB/month limit throttled after that. Price is not that bad at $50/mo. However, my requirements are 75GB/month https://www.sprint.com/en/shop/cell...0-yr-ib&deviceQuantity=1&plan=pln10780002prd&
In addition, the device is a crappy USB modem that has no provision for an external antenna - meaning depending on the service in your area, your speeds may suffer.

AT&T - 100GB/month and it has to have phone service which is $20/mo extra that you cannot remove. Total cost $100/mo https://www.att.com/cellphones/att/att-wireless-internet.html#sku=sku8550279 No external antenna connection for this device either and therefore, your speeds may also suffer.

Verizon - what a freaking joke. $700/mo for 100GB - I kid you not - https://www.verizonwireless.com/plans/connected-device-plans/

In addition, I have not seen wireless hotspot plans that allow HD streaming - but they are cloistered too and have extreme limits on the amount of data that can be downloaded before throttling occurs.

Basically, most of the cell phone plans are useless for home ISP service.

We can all hope that when 5G becomes widespread in the coming years, that there will be real competition instead of the joke that the FCC is currently arguing is competition.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Basically, most of the cell phone plans are useless for home ISP service.

Yes it is and should not be considered competition to our standard ISP connections.

Heck from what you posted the cellular services are not even competing with each other.

 

[Ray Marden]

You have no competition.

You are a monopoly.

But hey, it's possible that somebody could theoretically have the resources to expand into your market and compete with you.

So let's pretend you're in a "competitive" region and remove any caps - be sure to raise those prices up, up, and away!