aviel wrote:Second, the problem here isn't that ISP's are being propped up by government cronyism. Because laying down wire is expensive, it's a business with a high barrier to entry, meaning that there aren't a lot of players involved. There are so few that most tend to have local monopolies, without other broadband competitors.
In a functioning market, if ISPs tried to take advantage of deregulation and charge consumers more to access different sites, a competitor would come along and offer a better all-in-one package. Given the current state of the broadband market, however, that isn't going to happen. If an ISP doesn't offer a plan you like, you can move, and that's about it. In the absence of a viable market solution, we need net neutrality rules to ensure that ISPs don't engage in anticompetitive business practices.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
KleinerKiller wrote:It's probably futile because Ajit Pai is a feculent wretch who would sell out all of humanity for an extra nickel and much of the Trump administration is firmly on his side, but please call your local representatives and protest this for as long as possible.
Toy wrote:If net neutrality is lost, will it become acidic or basic?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:Do national hospitals even exist in america? why doesn't the government participate in the free market? as an institution with basically infinite budget tolerance levels, they'd be the perfect market value regulator.
Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
Tesseracts wrote:In this age of falsehoods and lies, it's comforting to know some people are genuinely idiots.
Crimson847 wrote:In other words, transgender-friendly privacy laws don't molest people, people molest people.
(Presumably, the only way to stop a bad guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law is a good guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law, and thus transgender-friendly privacy law rights need to be enshrined in the Constitution as well)
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 guests