It seems incorrect to call this competition.

I'm glad you got your broadband but what happened sounds much more like American politics than ordinary market processes. And in this political environment, corporations can engage in a variety of other tactics than placating a squeaky wheel - they can outlaw competition, buy off officials, pay for shrill media hit pieces and so-forth.

▲

HauntingPin an hour ago | parent [-]

It's clearly competition. The incumbent company saw a potential competitor and acted upon it. That's literally what happens when there's competition. It doesn't matter that the competitor didn't actually exist if the incumbent behaved as if it did exist.

I'm never sure what the point of comments like this is. "It seems incorrect". But it isn't. You just don't want to admit that competition is good and necessary.

	▲	joe_the_user 4 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		OK, I should have said "economic competition" though I imagined that it was implied. If you just say "competition", you can point at the efforts of ten people to gain a seat on the politbureau as a clear case of this.
	▲	postsantum 9 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No, it's called market manipulation. OP's action caused spending at the expense of the companies. Not going to "won't someone think of the shareholders", but calling competition is misleading