Support NeoGAF

[Generalpsyduck]

Fuck off.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Yeah I get one choice where I am located... I love me that competition.

 

[RMI]

Broadband Market Competitive.

lmao

What a greasy pos

yeah wut.... I have exactly one choice for high speed internet. SO MUCH COMPETITION!!!!

 

[Monocle]

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

This is bullshit of the highest order.

But emails and colored people.

 

[radioactivez0r]

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.

This is suggesting that because a single ISP just barely holds a bit over ONE THIRD of all business in that sector that it's competitive? Am I reading that right?

 

[Arttemis]

Private data shouldn't be a major source of income to ISPs. They're there to sell internet access, not people's secrets or habits.

And the statement that ISPs are too competitive!? Absolutely absurd. Many places don't even have an alternative for home broadband.

 

[Flying Toaster]

But emails and colored people.

You make a semi convincing argument.

Sad part is that it has always been the IT industry fighting the good fight against all this shit regular people give no care about any of this. ISP's should be viewed as a modern day utility or water company.

 

[guek]

Wait, what? How does ISPs sticking to regional monopolies somehow show there's too MUCH competition? What does competition have to do with internet privacy? What the fuckin fuck?

 

[TemplaerDude]

How.... how does the competitiveness of the market place have anything to do with privacy rules?

 

[Cheerilee]

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

The theory is that the government doesn't need to make laws to protect people's privacy, the free market will do it for the people, if privacy was a thing that the people actually wanted.

Verizon (the biggest ISP) only has 35% marketshare, so if Verizon starts selling your personal data and you don't like it, you can "very easily" switch to a competitor who respects your privacy and this new company will be happy to have your business.

But the flaw in that logic is that ISPs work in scattered monopoly bubbles, and tend not to step on each other's turfs, therefore they don't compete, and it's not "very easy" for people to choose an ISP which respects the privacy which this bastard just threw out the window.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

I have the choice between 50-80mbps Comcast, ~8mbps AT&T, or total shit local private internet company I won't even look into more because it's shit like AT&T and the pricing is just as bad.

It's hard to believe that Pai isn't aware of the average American experience for internet service. I'm thinking he's been "lobbied" quite substantially.

 

[avaya]

This is suggesting that because a single ISP just barely holds a bit over ONE THIRD of all business in that sector that it's competitive? Am I reading that right?

It's totally disingenuous bullshit.

Wireless is nationwide, broadband is only local and therefore limited to footprint. Comcast doesn't have a nationwide footprint. It only covers just under half of the US. Comcast market share in the areas that it has DOCSIS3.0 is over 50%.

Cable providers do not overlap footprint with each other. They all have their own territories. They are like a gangsters in this respect. There is nothing inherently wrong with it since it is rational to carve up territory like this so they can all maximise pricing.

 

[Flying Toaster]

I have the choice between 50-80mbps Comcast, ~8mbps AT&T, or total shit local private internet company I won't even look into more because it's shit like AT&T and the pricing is just as bad.

It's hard to believe that Pai isn't aware of the average American experience for internet service. I'm thinking he's been "lobbied" quite substantially.

He is aware. He does not care.

 

[Arttemis]

How.... how does the competitiveness of the market place have anything to do with privacy rules?

Because the majority party in the US has been bought by telecom lobbyists to think selling private statistics is part of business. It's fucking disgusting.

 

[Z O N E]

Man, just reading how some populated areas in USA have like 1 or 2 ISPs is terrible.

I live in London and in MY area alone I get 9 different choices of ISPs, with 2 more being added by the end of this year/beginning of next. (One being 1GB internet)

It's horrible how ISPs can sometimes buy out an area.

 

[Trey]

You make a semi convincing argument.

Sad part is that it has always been the IT industry fighting the good fight against all this shit regular people give no care about any of this. ISP's should be viewed as a modern day utility or water company.

Absolutely and without question. Obama realized this a bit too late in his presidency, but net neutrality and making internet service a utility should be a part of the Democratic platform going forward.

 

[aeolist]

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

the conservative argument against regulations is that they distort markets and should only be applied to address bad behavior in non-competitive markets, otherwise competition fixes problems on its own

the practical application of this idea is that insane logic is used to describe every market as competitive in order to delegitimize any and all regulations

 

[radios shipping overview]

Fucking industry shill.

 

[aeolist]

Man, just reading how some populated areas in USA have like 1 or 2 ISPs is terrible.

I live in London and in MY area alone I get 9 different choices of ISPs, with 2 more being added by the end of this year/beginning of next. (One being 1GB internet)

It's horrible how ISPs can sometimes buy out an area.

i believe in the UK and most parts of europe you have what's known as local loop unbundling, which means that the company which owns the physical infrastructure is required to sell access to any ISP that wants to provide service, usually at regulated rates.

the US does not have this. the company that owns the wires also provides the service and does not allow competition.

 

[avaya]

Man, just reading how some populated areas in USA have like 1 or 2 ISPs is terrible.

I live in London and in MY area alone I get 9 different choices of ISPs, with 2 more being added by the end of this year/beginning of next. (One being 1GB internet)

It's horrible how ISPs can sometimes buy out an area.

We have this because European regulation forced the incumbent provider, in the UK's case BT, to offer regulated wholesale access to it's network to allow service competition and incentivise it to invest in its network to offer services which could differentiate on quality. It is an extremely effective regulatory practice.

This sort of access is not present in the US. The FCC was on the path to this regulation with the classification of broadband under Title II. All of that is in the bin now and the fleecing will continue.

EDIT: Just what aeolist said above ha.

 

[Foffy]

America may be one of the most uncompetitive places on this planet when it comes to internet.

Of course this fuckin' dweeb has to say something like this. It's to normalize neoliberal commodification, because private profit is the goal and public solidarity and service is the enemy.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

We have a billion dial up isps where I live but only 2 high speed providers, niether of which meet the speed to be considered broadband. I did just get unlimited 4g hotspot t-mobile now, so there's that. I hope it lasts and doesn't get removed for some Trump agenda. As of now TMO is it. There are laws here that restrict any new provider from offering access.