text
stringlengths
14
502
[1467.08 --> 1469.74] The original article is from arstechnica.com.
[1469.86 --> 1474.50] And this is some pretty garbo-looking stuff that we got going on right here.
[1474.64 --> 1484.56] So the FCC basically, according to a U.S. court, can define markets with only a single internet
[1484.56 --> 1495.54] service provider as competitive, which to me means that basically that court doesn't have,
[1495.70 --> 1498.78] like, it's not the court of using the dictionary court, you know?
[1499.02 --> 1499.26] Yeah.
[1499.32 --> 1500.98] Like, it must be a different kind of court.
[1501.10 --> 1506.06] It's kind of like the court in Harry Potter when they go and they're convicting people for,
[1506.28 --> 1508.78] you know, for bad reasons.
[1508.84 --> 1509.42] You know, Linus?
[1510.14 --> 1513.78] I actually re-watched the entire Harry Potter series not very long ago.
[1513.90 --> 1514.28] So, yeah.
[1514.50 --> 1514.96] So the...
[1514.96 --> 1515.54] You know what I'm talking about.
[1515.56 --> 1515.86] So, yeah.
[1515.96 --> 1518.10] So the scene is they're bringing in...
[1518.10 --> 1519.62] They're bringing in witches.
[1519.86 --> 1522.38] They're taking their wands and then they're asking whose wand it is.
[1522.46 --> 1522.70] Oh, yeah.
[1522.70 --> 1523.42] And if they say it's their...
[1523.42 --> 1525.82] If they say it's not theirs, then they can say, well, then you're not...
[1525.82 --> 1526.30] Right.
[1526.38 --> 1526.80] ...a witch.
[1527.04 --> 1530.26] And if they say it is theirs, then they can say that they stole it.
[1530.46 --> 1531.90] And then they can convict them of stealing.
[1531.90 --> 1537.36] So they can either convict them of not being pure blood or whatever, or of stealing or
[1537.36 --> 1537.66] whatever.
[1537.88 --> 1539.54] Or they ask them who they stole it from.
[1539.68 --> 1541.14] You went way deeper than I meant to go.
[1541.36 --> 1541.76] Anyway.
[1541.98 --> 1542.82] That throwaway reference.
[1542.82 --> 1543.14] Anyway.
[1543.52 --> 1543.70] Yeah.
[1543.92 --> 1545.84] Dolores Umbridge is a bad, bad person.
[1545.94 --> 1546.18] Oh, I hate her.
[1546.18 --> 1546.98] You might say she's a witch.
[1547.16 --> 1547.40] Ha ha.
[1547.46 --> 1547.66] Yep.
[1547.84 --> 1548.26] Get it?
[1548.32 --> 1548.62] Because...
[1548.62 --> 1549.04] I got it.
[1549.06 --> 1549.50] She's a witch.
[1549.62 --> 1549.82] Anyway.
[1550.08 --> 1550.22] Yep.
[1550.40 --> 1555.74] So an appeals court has upheld an FCC ruling that broadband markets can be competitive even
[1555.74 --> 1558.14] when there is only one internet provider.
[1558.84 --> 1559.62] What is the logic?
[1559.62 --> 1565.34] The original FCC decision was appealed by competitive local exchange carriers and purchasers of business
[1565.34 --> 1567.58] broadband, including Sprint and Winstream.
[1567.86 --> 1570.58] It's actually a little more nuanced than it sounds, though.
[1570.72 --> 1578.20] So this decision eliminated price caps in any given county if 50% of potential customers
[1578.20 --> 1583.52] are within a half mile of a location served by a competitive provider.
[1583.52 --> 1590.60] So the FCC's position, then, is that nearby networks can close the half mile gap expanding
[1590.60 --> 1592.00] into the areas in question.
[1592.16 --> 1597.92] So in theory, if that reigning single ISP is charging too much for service, then that
[1597.92 --> 1602.70] neighboring competitor should be financially incentivized to expand into the area.
[1602.70 --> 1608.58] Man, this is like really market-sorts-itself-out type of solution.
[1608.58 --> 1608.60] Yeah.
[1608.60 --> 1613.64] So the FCC cited evidence that some competitors will build as far as a mile out and said that
[1613.64 --> 1617.46] most of the buildings at issue are far closer to competitive fiber than half a mile.
[1618.14 --> 1623.66] The CLEC's position is that it's often not feasible for neighboring ISPs to expand into
[1623.66 --> 1624.36] these areas.
[1625.48 --> 1626.00] Wow.
[1626.00 --> 1632.46] So, and then the FCC argued that the CLEC's petitioners studies inflate costs by selecting
[1632.46 --> 1640.84] the most expensive build, entirely underground lines, presuming a separate lateral line for
[1640.84 --> 1644.76] each individual low-bandwidth customer, and treating the main fiber ring as part of the
[1644.76 --> 1649.16] cost of reaching new customers rather than as an existing sunk cost near a potential new
[1649.16 --> 1649.50] customer.
[1650.62 --> 1653.28] So there's conflicting evidence in the judge's ruling.
[1653.28 --> 1657.28] Well, we recognize the relevant data presents radically different pictures of the competitiveness
[1657.28 --> 1660.44] of the market depending on the economic theory applied and the weight given to the conflicting
[1660.44 --> 1661.90] pieces of evidence.
[1662.58 --> 1666.18] But the FCC may rationally choose which evidence to believe.
[1668.26 --> 1669.66] That is...
[1669.66 --> 1670.08] Okay.
[1670.42 --> 1671.20] Too bad.
[1671.30 --> 1675.40] So they have denied the petitions for review as to the competitive market test because the
[1675.40 --> 1678.70] FCC's resolution of competing evidence was not arbitrary and capricious.
[1678.70 --> 1687.76] So basically, even if you only have one ISP to choose from, your market can be considered
[1687.76 --> 1694.54] competitive because there might be an ISP within half a mile that could build out to provide
[1694.54 --> 1694.90] service.
[1694.90 --> 1700.10] And I think that's really where the core of the issue lies, is like, if you have one ISP
[1700.10 --> 1703.52] to choose from, you have one ISP to choose from.
[1703.68 --> 1704.54] It's not competitive.
[1705.02 --> 1705.34] Just...
[1705.34 --> 1706.16] It's like saying that...
[1706.16 --> 1707.36] You don't actually have a choice.
[1707.36 --> 1712.66] Well, it's like saying that, oh, there's lots of competition here when there could be
[1712.66 --> 1713.84] competition in the future.
[1714.64 --> 1717.50] You're acting as if a future is here already.
[1717.78 --> 1718.44] But it's not.
[1718.44 --> 1725.08] So, I mean, this is a really frustrating issue because on the one hand, I am pretty free enterprise
[1725.08 --> 1725.94] in general.
[1726.28 --> 1727.30] I'm a capitalist.
[1727.30 --> 1727.54] capitalist.
[1729.20 --> 1735.90] But the problem here is that while you can make these sort of free market capitalist sort
[1735.90 --> 1740.46] of arguments for why there shouldn't be a bunch of regulation on what the major ISPs
[1740.46 --> 1744.68] can or cannot do, how much they can or cannot charge their customers, you can make those
[1744.68 --> 1745.08] arguments.
[1745.64 --> 1749.52] But the problem is that that ship sailed like a hundred years ago.