Marketing, done correctly, includes understanding your product, your customers, and why they want your product.

Not necessarily. A perfectly rational buyer (stay with me here!) wouldn't care at all how many competitors there are in the market, just what they're getting for their money. There are situations such as luxury goods where that does come into play (you can't get a Luis Vuitton bag from anyone but LV so it's "worth" more just because of that), but often the buyer doesn't care and may not even know about the level of competition.

Again, not always. There could be goods where people would be willing to pay more if they had to, but competitive forces keep the prices down. In the housing market specifically, perhaps a buyer would be willing to pay $700,000 if that's what they had to pay to get a house they like. But if there are enough houses on the market that such houses are priced at $600,000, they're going to pay that lower price. The supply side is just as important to price as the demand side, and competition heavily influences that.

Unless it's a highly competitive market, which this wouldn't be at least at first.

I just moved so once they manage to get the service working at the new place (today, hopefully) if it's still lousy I will see if there's something they can do about it. My understanding is that isn't just the way it is, the upstream is intended to be much faster than that.

If the rate limiting is done by Twitter, then the 1st Amendment doesn't apply whether t's viewpoint neutral or not.

Regulatory capture, mostly.

And I just found I have >800 down and 6 up. Thanks Comcast.

Evidence indicates it's expanding at an increasing rate.

Let me guess, you subscribe to either flat earth or electric universe or whatever it's called.

I agree we don't really know what happened. I disagree that we can't dismiss aliens, because that's exactly what we should do with such claims until we see the evidence. But by "dismiss" I don't mean we're totally certain it's not aliens, just that we don't necessarily know what it is, but there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that it's aliens.

I never said he never worked there. And no specific explanation of why exactly he said what he said is needed either. There are a couple of obvious possibilities, but all that's needed is that extraordinary evidence has not been presented.

No counter evidence is needed. The null hypothesis is that it isn't aliens, and we haven't seen any evidence remotely strong enough to prove otherwise.

And I replied to that, too.

A good explanation of why he might not have evidence isn't evidence.

Unless he has physical evidence, a simple application of Occam's Razor indicates he's more likely deluded or lying than working with extraterrestrial technology.