On Apr 1, 2013, at 6:54 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobb...@arbor.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> In an oligopoly situation, that's hardly a valid set of choices > > There's enough choice in most US markets (not all) to provide for a variety > of services offered, AUPs, and price points. Wireless has brought an > additional option to many previously underserved areas. With all due respect, sir, you are mistaken. Even in such populous areas as San Jose, there is a limited selection to a majority of the customers, especially if they want more than 1.5Mbps. In the majority of the US where it is rural, there is even less choice. Even where there are multiple providers, they often all provide the same limitations in their AUP unless you go to higher priced services. >> and is tantamount to extortion. > > Again, hyperbole doesn't help. > If all of the choices to eliminate unreasonable restrictions on how you use the bandwidth you pay for involve paying more money for roughly the same service, then that is not hyperbole. Such is the case for a very large fraction of subscribers in the US. > Another solution is to move to an area with more/better connectivity options, > as some folks move in order to be zoned within a particular school district. It is an option when you live in a neighborhood with a protection racket operating to move out of the neighborhood as well. This does not change the fact that a protection racket is extortion. Owen
