Support NeoGAF

[studyguy]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ket-too-competitive-for-strict-privacy-rules/

"Others argue that ISPs should be treated differently because consumers face a unique lack of choice and competition in the broadband marketplace," Pai and Ohlhausen wrote in their op-ed for The Washington Post yesterday. "But that claim doesn’t hold up to scrutiny either. For example, according to one industry analysis, Google dominates desktop search with an estimated 81 percent market share (and 96 percent of the mobile search market), whereas Verizon, the largest mobile broadband provider, holds only an estimated 35 percent of its market."
...
Total market share is a relevant statistic in mobile because customers really do have a choice, from four major nationwide carriers and various resellers and regional carriers. In home Internet service, a similar nationwide market share stat would on the surface show even more diversity of broadband companies, as even the nation's largest home ISP (Comcast) doesn't reach 35 percent.

But for home Internet customers, the relevant point is whether they can choose from multiple providers at their home or apartment. And they frequently can't, since ISPs often avoid each other's territory.The latest FCC report on this topic found that 76 percent of developed Census blocks had either zero or one fixed ISP offering speeds at the FCC's broadband standard of 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream.

The full article is worth looking at but the FCC is basically being disingenuous as fuck in the OP-ED they wrote in regards to in-home broadband availability by conveniently ignoring it. That being the basis of their argument everything just sort of rings hollow along with the second point made in the article about opting in or out on data collection through websites.

 

[whytemyke]

I wish my industry was as (un)competitive as ISPs. I'd make a KILLING on it.

 

[BY2K]

What does that have to do with privacy laws or lack of it?

 

[Trojita]

Broadband Market Competitive.

lmao

What a greasy pos

 

[Morts]

I can't change my broadband provider without buying a house in a different city.

 

[Machina]

Oligarchy, ladies and gents.

 

[VariantX]

There is so much god damned wrong condensed in the thread title alone...

 

[Ogodei]

Pod person, i swear. Maybe the ISPs cooked him up from our collective internet ramblings to create something that vaguely resembles humanity but fails the Turing test in a few key areas.

 

[False Witness]

There's a ton of competition in my area. I mean, I can choose from Brighthouse (Spectrum), Brighthouse, and Brighthouse.

My dad can choose from Comcast, Comcast, Comcast, Comcast, or Comcast.

So much competition.

 

[liquidtmd]

"Others argue that ISPs should be treated differently because consumers face a unique lack of choice and competition in the broadband marketplace," Pai and Ohlhausen wrote in their op-ed for The Washington Post yesterday. "But that claim doesn’t hold up to scrutiny either. For example, according to one industry analysis, Google dominates desktop search with an estimated 81 percent market share (and 96 percent of the mobile search market), whereas Verizon, the largest mobile broadband provider, holds only an estimated 35 percent of its market."

 

[avaya]

The man is one of the most blatant corporatist shills I have ever seen. His actions are so brazen you can't help but laugh at the audacity.

The US broadband market is the least competitive in the world. Period. That is why the average ARPU of a broadband subscriber is in the USD150+ range. European companies buying into US cable cite the lack of competition as the primary reason for wanting to get into the market. Explicitly. "You can get away with murder".

Competitive markets deliver ARPUs in the sub USD50/range. US Telecoms are a joke. Great investments for shareholders but an absolute mockery in all other facets.

 

[eggandI]

Ever since broadband became common I've had exactly 2 choices in every single place I've lived. Comcast and Verizon

:thinking:

 

[RedZaraki]

My parent's house has no broadband at all. There are no ISPs that service that area with broadband.

It's a problem.

 

[Pandora012]

I think I have 3 choices. But 2 for sure. Optimum and Verizon. Now if I were living in an apartment building again I wouldn't have a choice.

 

[LegendofJoe]

There are 3 ISPs where I live, but 2 of them suck. Too many choices and so much competition...

 

[studyguy]

What does that have to do with privacy laws or lack of it?

I can't really link the whole article, but basically the second half goes into it more, they treat the supposed abundance of competition on a national level as proof that the privacy policy is stifling competition and the government picking winners.

From their Op-Ed the FCC chair wrote in WaPo

The FCC’s regulations weren’t about protecting consumers’ privacy. They were about government picking winners and losers in the marketplace. If two online companies have access to the same data about your Internet usage, why should the federal government give one company greater leeway to use it than the other?

On a granular level it doesn't matter how many ISPs there are nationally. Access sucks and as you pointed out, it shouldn't have anything to do with privacy policy in the first place but here we are.

 

[Pagusas]

So weird to think about this and so easy to become disconnected. We have multiple providers offering us 1gb+ speeds at our house, and they all compete and try to one up each other. Att, time warner, Suddenlink, Grande Communications, plus several "wireless/antenda on your house" providers. Being in an area with that completely blinded me to the fact other areas have to deal with a single operator. Is it rual areas that are having this problem, or is subburb/cities too? I only know Dallas and North Central Illinois, none had this issue.

 

[Exile20]

The man is one of the most blatant corporatist shills I have ever seen. His actions are so brazen you can't help but laugh at the audacity.

The US broadband market is the least competitive in the world. Period. That is why the average ARPU of a broadband subscriber is in the USD150+ range. European companies buying into US cable cite the lack of competition as the primary reason for wanting to get into the market. Explicitly. "You can get away with murder".

Competitive markets deliver ARPUs in the sub USD50/range. US Telecoms are a joke. Great investments for shareholders but an absolute mockery in all other facets.

Jeff Sessions: Hold my beer....

 

[RedZaraki]

Market share tells you LITERALLY NOTHING about competition.

These companies are NOT competing.

 

[a.wd]

Please, please pretty fucking please start voting in your own interests.

This is bullshit of the highest order.

 

[Draft]

Ajit Pai is a central casting little r Republican and he genuinely believes leaving markets alone produces the best results. He is too disingenuous or cowardly to admit he believes the current state of the broadband market is OK because it's what resulted from provider competition. He will not take any action to spur broadband speeds, access, or development in any real sense. Comcast might get a sweetheart deal to run cable to 2,000 person towns in the middle of nowhere.

Elections have consequences and this mindset defines the FCC for the next 4 years.

 

[Brandon F]

Competitive? Half the country has zero choice at all for their broadband provider. Mostly thanks to shitty oversight by the FCC and scummy decisions like this one on the table.

 

[avaya]

Jeff Sessions: Hold my beer....

Sessions is just a racist. Pai is on another planet. Pruitt at the EPA is probably the closest in absolute fuckery.

 

[Omegasquash]

Yeah...their response is bullshit, just like the vote to lock this shit in from Congress.

Would be nice to be able to say that they didn't vote in the interest of their constituents based on the money they received from ISP lobbies, but we're a long way from something like that.

 

[br3wnor]

I feel for people who don't have any good options. Hell, there's even areas of NYC where you have ONE provider available (not counting satellite), which is mind boggling. Most of my friends in Upstate NY don't have more than 1 or 2 choices and either way are pretty bad service and high cost. Where I live we basically only have Optimum or Verizon Fios but since the competition between them is so fierce and the market so big (Long Island), they have good deals/service.

Right now I get 2 DVR's w/ full HD basic cable package, land line and 50/25mbs broadband for $120 a month.

 

[Quixzlizx]

I want to punch this prick through a window every time he opens his mouth.

 

[Exile20]

Sessions is just a racist. Pai is on another planet. Pruitt at the EPA is probably the closest in absolute fuckery.

Neil Gorsuch: Hold my beer...

Point is, all of them are terrible people.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

Is it rual areas that are having this problem, or is subburb/cities too? I only know Dallas and North Central Illinois, none had this issue.

A lot of rural areas don't have cable, period. It's DSL or nothing if you want cable. And if you want internet, but no cable? Dial up still exists!

But even bigger cities have this problem. A freind of mine lived in Des Moines, and before she bought a house she lived in an apartment where there was 0 choices. You took the building provider, or you got nothing.

 

[SpecX]

There are 3 ISPs where I live, but 2 of them suck. Too many choices and so much competition...

I feel your pain. I'm in the same boat and can pick from the following:

Frontier FiOS - Great speeds, shit company
Spectrum (TWC) - Decent speeds and pricing, ancient tech
Verizon DSL - LOL nope!

 

[Trojita]

I feel for people who don't have any good options. Hell, there's even areas of NYC where you have ONE provider available (not counting satellite), which is mind boggling. Most of my friends in Upstate NY don't have more than 1 or 2 choices and either way are pretty bad service and high cost. Where I live we basically only have Optimum or Verizon Fios but since the competition between them is so fierce and the market so big (Long Island), they have good deals/service.

Right now I get 2 DVR's w/ full HD basic cable package, land line and 50/25mbs broadband for $120 a month.

In a real competitive market that would likely be even cheaper.

 

[avaya]

Right now I get 2 DVR's w/ full HD basic cable package, land line and 50/25mbs broadband for $120 a month.

That is, objectively speaking, a shit deal. In the UK you would get a package like that for less than USD60. In France for less than that.

The company that owns Optimum is now French. It regularly talks about how easy it is to fleece people. The competition between them and Verizon is largely fake. Both companies attest to this.

 

[LQX]

In my area I only have Optimum or Satellite to choose from. It's like the cable companies have carved out territories. If I can get Optimum in my area that means I cant get Comcast and vice-versa. People with Verzion Fios live like a street over and I cant get that either. It's ridiculous.

 

[AstroNut325]

Remember, Republicans want this!

I can choose between true broadband with Spectrum or 3Mbs DSL with AT&T.

So much competition.

 

[br3wnor]

In a real competitive market that would likely be even cheaper.

I don't doubt that, just comparing my situation to those of people I know in markets that have even worse competition.

That is, objectively speaking, a shit deal. In the UK you would get a package like that for less than USD60. In France for less than that.

The company that owns Optimum is now French. It regularly talks about how easy it is to fleece people. The competition between them and Verizon is largely fake. Both companies attest to this.

That's wild. Given the use I get out of my TV/Internet I don't find $120 a month to be unconscionable all things considered but it would certainly be nice to have better pricing.

 

[avaya]

Neil Gorsuch: Hold my beer...

Point is, all of them are terrible people.

Oh agreed. Gorsuch is a good contender for being worse than a Scalia 2.0. Which would top Pai.

 

[Septimus Prime]

Fuck this guy.

 

[Mathieran]

What does competition have to do with privacy laws? Honest question.

 

[Candescence]

Pai is a telecom stooge and lying scumbag. The US' ISP market is amongst the most uncompetitive in the world. It's a country where telecoms are basically allowed to write shitty state laws restricting competition and banning municipal broadband initiatives.

I miss Wheeler. He may have had his faults, but he wasn't afraid to piss off the telecoms and do things that were right for consumers.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Ajit Pai is a known corporatist who lives to serve corporations at all costs and at the expense of the middle and lower class.

 

[Nokterian]

BULLSHIT!

Ajit pai is the worst..he is a despicable human being not giving any shit about the internet and not giving anything about consumers.

He only does it for the money and yes every ISP to give them what they want.

 

[Sciz]

Ajit Pai's been parroting this bullshit for a few years now. The only thing that has changed in the intervening time is the urgency with which he should be fired into the sun.

 

[avaya]

What does competition have to do with privacy laws? Honest question.

Implication being in a super competitive market one provider can take on the role of being pro-privacy and cater for a demographic that way. Or so goes the libertopian fantasy.

Telecoms is a prime example of how libertarian views are just abject fantasy thinking.

These companies regularly engage in cartel like behaviour and they have to be forced to compete by a strong regulator. The US wireless market has only become competitive because Deutsche Tel was not allowed to sell T-Mo to ATT, so it finally broke down and competed aggressively, at first in an effort to force an eventual Sprint deal. Thing is T-Mo's stratospheric success has been illuminating to Deutsche Tel since they are the German equivalent of ATT so are typically averse to pro-consumer strategies and were shocked that the T-Mo business is now viable organically i.e. they are in an enviable position, they no longer need a Sprint deal.

 

[Glix]

Implication being in a super competitive market one provider can take on the role of being pro-privacy and cater for a demographic that way. Or so goes the libertopian fantasy.

Telecoms is a prime example of how libertarian views are just abject fantasy thinking.

These companies regularly engage in cartel like behaviour and they have to be forced to compete by a strong regulator. The US wireless market has only become competitive because Deutsche Tel was not allowed to sell T-Mo to ATT, so it finally broke down and competed aggressively, at first in an effort to force an eventual Sprint deal. Thing is T-Mo's stratospheric success has been illuminating to Deutsche Tel since they are the German equivalent of ATT so are typically averse to pro-consumer strategies and were shocked that the T-Mo business is now viable organically i.e. they are in an enviable position, they no longer need a Sprint deal.

Reading this makes me want to slam my head against the wall over and over until I pass out.

They have become so fucking bloated and horrible that they were surprised that a customer centric focus led to a positive position for them. Insane that this is the reality of how big business views things.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

The report neglects to mention after making his remarks he then stifled a laugh and resumed tying a damsel to train tracks.

 

[Mathieran]

Implication being in a super competitive market one provider can take on the role of being pro-privacy and cater for a demographic that way. Or so goes the libertopian fantasy.

Telecoms is a prime example of how libertarian views are just abject fantasy thinking.

These companies regularly engage in cartel like behaviour and they have to be forced to compete by a strong regulator. The US wireless market has only become competitive because Deutsche Tel was not allowed to sell T-Mo to ATT, so it finally broke down and competed aggressively, at first in an effort to force an eventual Sprint deal. Thing is T-Mo's stratospheric success has been illuminating to Deutsche Tel since they are the German equivalent of ATT so are typically averse to pro-consumer strategies and were shocked that the T-Mo business is now viable organically i.e. they are in an enviable position, they no longer need a Sprint deal.

Thanks, I figured it was some stupid bullshit like that but wasn't sure. Everyone wins here except for the consumer. No company is gonna step in and provide this, not at least without charging extra. It's either that or one has to shell out extra for a separate service.

 

[avaya]

Reading this makes me want to slam my head against the wall over and over until I pass out.

They have become so fucking bloated and horrible that they were surprised that a customer centric focus led to a positive position for them. Insane that this is the reality of how big business views things.

Oh it's even madder than that. The reason European investors own Deutsche Telekom shares today is because of T-Mobile US. Exclusively because of it. The US division is now going to be a bigger contributor to DT than Germany and DT is a fucking monopoly in Germany. T-Mobile US is the biggest success story in global telecoms in the past 20 years. It's amazing.

 

[Rebel Leader]

What fucking competition?


What does that have to do with privacy?

 

[SuperBanana]

Too competitive? American internet is a monopoly lol.

 

[Trey]

What fucking competition?


What does that have to do with privacy?

Nothing in a real sense. It's an excuse to give telecoms more power.

 

[Hari Seldon]

This guy needs to be in jail for being a piece of shit corrupt scumbag.