We're finding out that anywhere our laws say the government can hold rich people accountable or rich people should do something it actually means they can just do whatever they want. Even the hard line laws like price collusion have gone unenforced for decades now. And now that there is an (a single) enforcement action, it's a civil suit that's not even threatening to cost them more than they made.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not a full monopoly. You can choose another ISP, but it's just that in practice you'd need to physically move to a new location to make that change of vendor.

[–] Maggoty 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a full monopoly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why are you bickering with me about it? I don't appreciate people asking questions in bad faith just so they can make a spicy comment. Think I like it?

There are choices, it's just they all suck unless you're willing to move. Nobody's arguing that it is a local semi-monopoly.

[–] Maggoty 2 points 2 months ago

I'm not the guy you responded to, I'm just pointing out that it is a full monopoly. Which is important because part of the story they sell is that the ability to pay thousands of dollars in moving costs is a reasonable cost of switching providers. We're never going to get the situation changed if we don't acknowledge that it's a full monopoly, complete with rent seeking.