LogFAQs > #980190793

CableZL posted...

If it was truly a matter of competition, Spectrum, in 2013, COULD have:
* Increased bandwidth for customers from 50 Mbps to 100 Mbps FOR FREE (as they did after Google Fiber came to town)
* AT&T would have then had to follow suit and offer better service to compete
* Increased bandwidth for customers from 100 Mbps to 200 Mbps FOR FREE (as they did after Google Fiber came to town)
* AT&T would have then had to follow suit and offer better service to compete

Instead, Spectrum chose to rest on their laurels because they knew AT&T wasn't doing anything either and vice versa. If they truly wanted to compete, they easily could have offered better speeds to gain marketshare, but they were actively not doing so.

So you end up with a market disruptor like Google to come in and change the game. I get what you're saying, AT&T and Spectrum COULD have done this sooner on their own but they had no reason to until Google showed up. That isn't inherently illegal though. Being an archaic, lazy business isn't illegal UNLESS both companies are directly coordinating and conspiring together to offer the same service at the same price so neither one has do put in any effort. Usually lazy, archaic businesses get slaughtered but following 2008 and too big to fail that isn't always the case. That's a government regulation problem though not a market problem. In any event, this isn't something that Net Neutrality solves.