Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. You are missing the point, behavior is an action. There are two separate actions occurring here: one lobbying and two government instituting a policy. To lobby the government for anything isn't anti-competitive because everone can do it. It is hyper competitive actually. The government actions are the anticompetitive element in this process. Another way to put it is that cable companies, through lobbying, express a desire for the government to take anti-competitive action but the government is the one taking the anti-competitive action, and the only institution that actually can be anti-competitive. The government shouldn't have this kind of authority and this example you gave of government using it's force to create anticompetitive market would not be possible if it did not or if the voters didnt accept that this is a proper thing for the government to do.
  3. Give me a fucking break. Stop with your "alternative facts" bullshit. This is documented anti competitive behavior from the telecom industry by leading the charge, funding, and actually writing anti municipal broadband legislation -- out of fear of public works treading on its private enterprise rent seeking. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/who-wants-competition-big-cable-tries-outlawing-municipal-broadband-in-kansas/ AJ
  4. Today
  5. Sounds like That is local government using force to me and the best solution would be to disallow municipalities from having this kind of power. The anticompetitive behavior comes from the government here. Nice Try though.
  6. How do markets work in your mind? No company can do whatever it wants. No company can restrict new entrance by force without the government. So in this fantasy world of yours, in which cable companies are omnipotent, then you would be right. That just isnt the way the world works. In any case the point I made from google fiber came from Schmidt himself. His answer on Google fiber starts at 37:45 Note, he didnt complain about competitors, he complains about Local government.
  7. Hmm, what industry lobby funds and helps write anti municipal broadband legislation? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/ AJ
  8. Go on name them. What anti-competitive practices?
  9. @realDonaldTrump The American People Love & Respect Our President, First Lady & Administration. 🇺🇸❤️

  10. It is a chicken or the egg scenario. Free marketers questionably believe that regulation is the overwhelming impediment to investment in the last mile broadband sector, that extreme deregulation inherently will lead to innovation from incumbents and competition from new market entrants. Never mind other barriers to entry -- entrenched incumbents, high startup costs, largely fixed market size -- that are characteristic of near, if not absolute natural monopoly, such that innovation and competition are not guaranteed to arise or may take an unacceptably long time to materialize. AJ
  11. @ddittmar9 @CPinNashville @funder This makes zero sense. A stupid tweet. Dipshit level. Pretends Dems have some con… https://t.co/hcAct1XSxu

  12. I do not think that is a very good case to use to try and make your argument though. The one touch rule was ruled illegal and two, the rule was stupid to begin with. With how advanced fiber and cable networks are these days, who is going to just roll over and allow an outside company touch their network? No doubt, the true intention of taking this court was to slow down deployment of google fiber but they had a solid argument here and at the end of the day, it is just business as usual. Take up your competitors time and money and hope they go away.
  13. @MLB Red Sox!!

  14. The problem with this repeal is that the ISP industry simply does not function as a free market in current form. Google, with near-infinite (and certainly more than many existing ISPs) financial and legal resources, has had so much trouble getting a foot in the door in this market that they've suspended expansion. On top of that, our economy is so heavily dependent on the internet that any drastic change in pricing from all ISPs could have a real impact on the entire country. Now, I know that sort of thing won't happen any time soon because at that point the ISPs would incur the wrath of Congress, but all other things being equal the cost of using and doing business over the internet can (and likely will, though gradually) substantially increase without net neutrality regulation in place. You can nitpick industry market details, but there would definitely be a macro impact on productivity if every business had to handle the added overhead of paying for separate internet packages and data traffic. (Productivity is a determinant of SRAS...) You can argue that the problem is at a local level, but then why the need to repeal net neutrality RIGHT THIS SECOND before you solve those local issues? (Or look into the blatantly obvious fraud in the public comment system.) I completely understand the ISP viewpoint here, but we really shouldn't give them complete power over the entire Internet-dependent economy. Especially when there is essentially no invisible hand in place to correct the market. I can't think of another industry that everyone (individuals, firms, the government, etc) depends on as much as we do the Internet that isn't regulated like a public utility. And net neutrality is a far cry from actual utility-style regulation. As I said, if legitimate competition can be introduced to the market then my points are moot. But I don't see that ever happening. Tldr deregulation is great except when you're putting a massive economic growth medium on the line to protect the profits and growth of an industry that makes up a tiny slice of GDP compared to E-Commerce and digital services when there are plenty of alternatives to help out the ISPs available. And I have looked those numbers up before; it really is a small fraction.
  15. @blackthought That verse is a living testament of hip-hop greatness.

  16. I answered all of this in the previous post. Do you not read and just post? ISPs will be able to do what they want if they don't deceive their customers. Good luck getting the FTC to do anything about it. Any good lawyer will be able to throw any "anti-competitive" claims out the window.
  17. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-and-comcast-win-lawsuit-they-filed-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville/ But let's keep blaming local government, ja?😆
  18. So are you just going to ignore the anti-competitive practices that existing ISPs use to keep new providers out from their territories? And again, we are several years away from 5G deployment, with or without government interference. It's not going to cover every neighborhood and reliability won't be guaranteed. 5G will not be a safeguard to NN. You keep blaming the wrong people for the lack of competition.
  19. RT @ColMorrisDavis: I’m so old that I recall when there was a kerfuffle over bare arms in the White House, but that was back when the @GOP…

  20. RT @ISS_CASIS: DYK: @budweiserusa is sending two investigations to the ISS National Lab to study the effects of microgravity on barley seed…

  21. Official Airave 3 LTE / S1000 NSC Thread

    Update: It's a miracle! I don't know what I did, but it's been up with no disconnects now for over a day. I tried it without the router directly hooked into the modem overnight a couple nights ago to no avail. Then tried with a different router I had lying around, to no avail. Fed up, I hooked up my main router again, reset both sides of the airave, again, and left it. Now it finally is fully connected and hasn't dropped, that I can tell. I've never had so much difficulty in getting a piece of hardware running. Crossing fingers it stays this way. Now comes the task of placing it where I need to after I run new ethernet, and hoping I don't have the same problems again. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
  22. Samsung Galaxy S8 & Dual Sim/Duos

    yeah, I want back in! There is no way to do this according to the "Samsung Experts" I chatted with. :sadpanda:
  23. I concur with you about scale and fixed cost. Government policies establish the guardrails for this equilibrium.
  24. Duopolies do have competition and does transfer welfare to the consumer. Look, the number efficient of players in a market is determined largely by returns to scale. The one thing the government can do to help a market have more competition and reach an efficient state is lower the fixed cost associated with regulations.
  25. Yup. This is the major problem. The process needs to be improved for fiber companies too. The reason why google had cities bid to bring google fiber to their town was because the regulatory cost would have been too high to make it worth it to them. Local government shouldn't be allowed to impose such burdens on infrastructure companies.
  26. I supported the FCC’s action yesterday. I don’t like monopolies, but I dislike duopolies more because it’s the illusion of competition. I support policies that ensure and encourage vibrant competition between multiple market participants. When physical threats and intimidation are involved, that undermines any legitimacy to one’s position in my opinion.
  1. Load more activity
×