5 ms·
> this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality Exactly the point I'm trying to make. If Google turns around and says "Fine, you don't lik
by mabbo 9y ago
> this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality
Exactly the point I'm trying to make. If Google turns around and says "Fine, you don't like net neutrality? Let me show you how this works both ways".
The ISPs do not make the product, they sell the access to the product. If the product goes away, then they aren't selling anything at all- and their customers will stop paying them.
- ucaetano 9y agoYou talk like customers actually have a choice in ISP...
- erwinkle 9y agoYep, most places I've lived, I've only ever had 1 option (unless I want to pay for satellite internet lol)
- drcube 9y agoThere's always a choice. Suppose your ISP started charging you $10,000 per month for the service you have now? Would you pay it? Could you? No, you'd probably just go without home service, or rely on your cellular data plan, or get dialup, or just take an internet sabbatical until the ISP cleaned up their act. For some people, their tolerance for bullshit is less than others. For those people, perhaps charging a dollar extra for YouTube access is enough. It only takes a fairly small percentage of customers to put a lot of pressure on service providers. Monopoly or not.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- throwaway2048 9y agoThe idea that people should be willing to go without Internet, and if they don't they clearly don't care enough is self defeating and silly.
- sushid 9y agoThat's a poor way of trying to weasel out of the actual definition of monopoly, which is defined as "a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service"[0]. What you're describing is a substitute good. When the "choice" is to not purchase said product/service and look to alternatives, you're literally describing the effect of a monopoly. [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly http://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly
- drcube 9y agoI'm not trying to weasel out of anything. Of course they're monopolies. My point is simply that a monopoly isn't some sort of God-emperor who can do anything without consequence. Even monopolies have to bow to customer pressure, they're just less sensitive to it than companies in more competitive industries. Supply and demand applies to monopolies, too, that's why their prices might be higher than they would be in a competitive environment, but their prices aren't infinite. "Going without" is always a choice, even if there are no competitors.
- ucaetano 9y agoWe're talking about reasonably priced broadband services, no need to be pedantic or literal. You can always put money on the lottery several times, win, buy your own satellite and have your own DTH service. Or kill yourself, so that you no longer need internet. So no, there isn't always a choice in broadband service. And most times, there isn't a choice at all.
- thegayngler 9y agoUmm there is always a choice as to wether or not you want to use a good or a service.
- takeda 9y agoIMO the reason Google doesn't do much here is that they are in a very good spot here. They are not in any danger, and if anything ISPs would probably pay them to provide their service. So I doubt Google would ever do anything at this point.