I was trying to make a point that, once again, has gone over your head. Comparing dial up (max 56kbps... plus connection time) to broadband is not a valid comparison for most people.
I didn't say it was "for most people" - I said it was
legally. And I gave an example showing just how the authorities define commodities -- no, wait --
has defined commodities -- for the purposes of determining where there is and is not effective competition, beyond it being just personal gripes. If you really think that this FCC and this federal judiciary - those who will actually make the decisions that will affect the internet service that all of us will be offered - will see things your way instead of mine, then I think that is wishful thinking, and we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
In your mind, perhaps. But when people compare one brand of tomato soup to another - it is not a legal question.
The sentence was, "Meaningful competition needs at least three players in the market." Refusing to see this as a legal issue, when it invariably is, is bound to lead to wrong conclusions. It insulates people from acknowledging what they need to acknowledge, in order to better represent their own interests.
This thread was asking how people who don't have video services through cable or satellite are getting their internet.
If that were true, then bringing up the question of what is and is not meaningful competition was off-topic. Of course, it
wasn't off-topic. And there is a difference of opinion about what constitutes meaningful competition. I appreciate that the thread has room for both opinions, rather than just one, especially since my opinion is almost surely going to be be echoed in what we all actually encounter in the marketplace -- i.e., is almost surely going to be the determinations of the regulators and courts when the matter is brought before them, and not because it is my opinion, but rather because it follows the patterns of decisions in similar contexts, such as the example I gave earlier.
