Verizon: Please, Only We Can Lie About Network Neutrality → Re: Verizon a consumer's predator?

Fiduciary responsibilities are not an excuse to break laws without repercussions.

Broken laws? Did I miss part of the discussion?

Anticompetitive behavior, backroom deals, cartel-like pricing... all quite illegal.

Anti-competitive behavior has occurred in a few instances and it's typically been squashed fairly quickly. Backroom deals? Our country is founded in part on making deals, and unless you have examples, I don't see how they're illegal. Cartel-like pricing? Hardly. Lack of sufficient competition in certain markets to get profit margins as thin as possible to favor consumers, possibly. But how is that illegal?

Wait wait, you don't think inflated special access prices is anticompetitive? There are ISPs in rural areas paying $100+/mb of bandwidth because only one company, either Verizon or AT&T, runs a line there, and they can price at whatever the heck they want. Even Sprint is at the mercy of V & T's special access lines.

quote:

---

Backroom deals? Our country is founded in part on making deals, and unless you have examples, I don't see how they're illegal.

---

It's anti-competitive you moron. If V, T, and Google are sorting out rules in closed-door meetings with an FCC in meetings without any input from the consumer or small businesses, how can anyone else compete?

quote:

---

Cartel-like pricing? Hardly. Lack of sufficient competition in certain markets to get profit margins as thin as possible to favor consumers, possibly. But how is that illegal

---

*faceslap* 90% of the industry is owned by 4 companies. What the heck do you think the word "cartel" even means? The antitrust measurement gauge that the FCC uses, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, has jumped by almost 700 points to 2848 since the 2003. A market is "highly concentrated' at 1800. The FCC is supposed to take notice at 2880.

Only Sprint is experimenting with pricing, and that's because they don't have a choice with all the customers they're losing. AT&T was able to slap on an abusive 2 GB cap despite the falling cost of wireless backhaul.

What kind of evidence beyond this do you NEED to see cartel-like behavior?

So how exactly can it be anti-competitive if only one competitor exists?What's the old saying about name calling in lieu of presenting a valid argument? I'm still waiting to hear what's illegal.

said by dictionary.com :

---

car·tel [kahr-tel]
–noun
1. an international syndicate, combine, or trust formed esp. to regulate prices and output in some field of business.
2. a coalition of political or special-interest groups having a common cause, as to encourage the passage of a certain law.
3. a written agreement between belligerents, esp. for the exchange of prisoners.
4. a written challenge to a duel.

---

If it weren't for the growing number of smaller wireless competitors, I could begin to see your concern.Something that actually highlights illegal activity would be a great start, particularly in relation to an actual law being broken.