3 ms·
It sounds like you're saying or at least working towards the real problem is that there is no competition among ISPs, rather than "the ... problem eating away a
by 794CD01 9y ago
It sounds like you're saying or at least working towards the real problem is that there is no competition among ISPs, rather than "the ... problem eating away at our democracy: ... people with money get disproportionate representation."
At least I hope you are, since that's my point.
- losteric 9y agoTotally. However, letting these monopolies prioritize traffic is simply at odds with the idea of ISP competition. Net neutrality means any provider must offer equal service within the network. That simple axiom is what lets a new ISP enter a city and offer service to just one building - because Comcast (for example) is required to give that new ISP equal pricing and priority. Without net neutrality, Comcast can abuse leverage it's monopoly to kill competition... they aren't going to give new ISP customers equal priority. yThe competition would literally have to build a duplicate network connecting every residential home all the way to a "friendly" ISP willing to peer. Impossible without an incredible amount of capital and labor. The death of net neutrality is quite literally the death of competition in this space. Ma Bell back from the dead.
- 794CD01 9y agoYou're still treating second order effects instead of root causes. Ma Bell wasn't forced to provide equal treatment to its customers. It was broken up.
- losteric 9y agoThis is a war, we're fighting multiple fronts simultaneously... the root cause arguably lies with corporate campaign financing reform, which is dead in the water under this administration/Congress.