4 ms·

First off, I was neither arguing for nor against net neutrality. I was responding to "With the wide availability of cellular service that provides broadband sp

by nocman 9y ago

First off, I was neither arguing for nor against net neutrality. I was responding to "With the wide availability of cellular service that provides broadband speeds pretty much everyone in the country has multiple choices of ISP." From a practical standpoint, this is not true for many users. Secondly, I was in no way referring to "insanely fast broadband speeds and data download limits". I was talking about practical limits. Where I live, if I depended on mobile connectivity for internet service, it would be impractical to do anything that involved any media of any significant size. The connectivity would at best be barely capable, and the data limits and plan costs would make it hideously expensive. Therefore I have pretty much one ISP that can provide me with tolerable service.

marknutter 9y ago
But you base where you live on the infrastructure available. If high internet speeds are important to you, then moving to a city with better options makes sense. If you want to lie in the boondocks, then that's more important to you than internet.
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  You're assuming a level of mobility for people that's not actually available.
- nocman 9y ago
  It is true that I accept more limited choices of certain things by living in a rural location. There are many benefits that I enjoy from being rural that I weigh against technological needs -- it isn't a simple "pick one or the other" situation. However, the point I was trying to make is that your statement "With the wide availability of cellular service that provides broadband speeds pretty much everyone in the country has multiple choices of ISP." which was in response to the statement "ISPs and utility companies are natural monopolies. When you move to a new location, you're stuck with the ISPs that service that location; often just 1 ISP." is actually not true from a practical standpoint for many people in the US. I don't just use the internet for entertainment. I use it for my work. And because of the limitations of where I live, that means basically one ISP can provide me with the service I need. The "broadband" service provided in my area by mobile companies, is first of all, not really "broadband" at all, and secondly, even if it was, it would not be practical given the high cost that said companies would charge for it. I think that many people who live in cities underestimate the number of people who are in this situation (and no, I have not lived in a rural location for my entire career). It is certainly not true from a practical standpoint that "pretty much everyone" in the US has access to "broadband speeds" from multiple ISPs.
- cnnsucks 9y ago
  Ok, so you're past claiming that "pretty much everyone in the country" has the benefit of "wide availability of cellular service that provides broadband speeds." Well, that's progress anyhow.

by nocman 9y ago

marknutter 9y ago

But you base where you live on the infrastructure available. If high internet speeds are important to you, then moving to a city with better options makes sense. If you want to lie in the boondocks, then that's more important to you than internet.

Jtsummers 9y ago
You're assuming a level of mobility for people that's not actually available.
nocman 9y ago
It is true that I accept more limited choices of certain things by living in a rural location. There are many benefits that I enjoy from being rural that I weigh against technological needs -- it isn't a simple "pick one or the other" situation. However, the point I was trying to make is that your statement "With the wide availability of cellular service that provides broadband speeds pretty much everyone in the country has multiple choices of ISP." which was in response to the statement "ISPs and utility companies are natural monopolies. When you move to a new location, you're stuck with the ISPs that service that location; often just 1 ISP." is actually not true from a practical standpoint for many people in the US. I don't just use the internet for entertainment. I use it for my work. And because of the limitations of where I live, that means basically one ISP can provide me with the service I need. The "broadband" service provided in my area by mobile companies, is first of all, not really "broadband" at all, and secondly, even if it was, it would not be practical given the high cost that said companies would charge for it. I think that many people who live in cities underestimate the number of people who are in this situation (and no, I have not lived in a rural location for my entire career). It is certainly not true from a practical standpoint that "pretty much everyone" in the US has access to "broadband speeds" from multiple ISPs.
cnnsucks 9y ago
Ok, so you're past claiming that "pretty much everyone in the country" has the benefit of "wide availability of cellular service that provides broadband speeds." Well, that's progress anyhow.