5 ms·

Who's advertising this when AT&T has a legal monopoly or duopoly in your town?

by rrix2 8y ago

bb88 8y ago
The arguments for anti-net-neutrality has basically come down to "let the free market sort it out." I don't agree with that, but if we can't have net neutrality, at least define to the customers what the "internet" means. And in that case, the town just lost it's internet. What makes you think the residents won't remember this come election day?
- icebraining 8y ago
  Except they haven't, really. They can still turn on their phone and login onto Facebook and watch stuff on YouTube. Someone telling them they no longer have Internet will just sound silly.
  - zentiggr 8y ago
    Oh god I really hate that that sounds so accurate in so many cases. How do we provide a kiddie day care service level for people who won't or don't want to care, and a full service level for the rest of us? Or do I owe the Internet an apology?
- topranks 8y ago
  The problem with the "let the market decide" is that there is no free market for Internet access in the US! In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. So there is no "market" to normalise things. You simply cannot vote with your feet. In Europe, where the regulatory framework is different, people would just switch ISPs if one started acting in bad faith.
  - bb88 8y ago
    >In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. And that government is elected by the people, right? Which means they could make this an election issue and vote candidates that don't support monopolies, right? I don't understand what part of my statement you're arguing with.
    - iMerNibor 8y ago
      This doesnt work well in practice though. Most people don't have the grasp on the technicalities to even be able to make the decision to vote for a specific candidates because their internet access is sub-par Not to mention if you vote for someone you also get all the other things that candidate aligns with, not just better internet. (not super sure how voting on city/state level works in the us, but it should be accurate enough)
    - larkeith 8y ago
      That would be less of a problem if most US elections weren't duopolies as well.
      - ataturk 8y ago
        Plus the agitprop--the media hates the Internet and always depicts it as an accomplice in crimes. So the "real" Internet would be portrayed as the dark web, full of unseemly crooks, gangsters, child molesters, etc. You wanting "full Internet" would imply that you're a pedophile. And you're not a pedo, are you?

Who's advertising this when AT&T has a legal monopoly or duopoly in your town?

by rrix2 8y ago

Who's advertising this when AT&T has a legal monopoly or duopoly in your town?

bb88 8y ago

The arguments for anti-net-neutrality has basically come down to "let the free market sort it out." I don't agree with that, but if we can't have net neutrality, at least define to the customers what the "internet" means. And in that case, the town just lost it's internet. What makes you think the residents won't remember this come election day?

icebraining 8y ago
Except they haven't, really. They can still turn on their phone and login onto Facebook and watch stuff on YouTube. Someone telling them they no longer have Internet will just sound silly.
- zentiggr 8y ago
  Oh god I really hate that that sounds so accurate in so many cases. How do we provide a kiddie day care service level for people who won't or don't want to care, and a full service level for the rest of us? Or do I owe the Internet an apology?
topranks 8y ago
The problem with the "let the market decide" is that there is no free market for Internet access in the US! In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. So there is no "market" to normalise things. You simply cannot vote with your feet. In Europe, where the regulatory framework is different, people would just switch ISPs if one started acting in bad faith.
- bb88 8y ago
  >In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. And that government is elected by the people, right? Which means they could make this an election issue and vote candidates that don't support monopolies, right? I don't understand what part of my statement you're arguing with.
  - iMerNibor 8y ago
    This doesnt work well in practice though. Most people don't have the grasp on the technicalities to even be able to make the decision to vote for a specific candidates because their internet access is sub-par Not to mention if you vote for someone you also get all the other things that candidate aligns with, not just better internet. (not super sure how voting on city/state level works in the us, but it should be accurate enough)
  - larkeith 8y ago
    That would be less of a problem if most US elections weren't duopolies as well.
    - ataturk 8y ago
      Plus the agitprop--the media hates the Internet and always depicts it as an accomplice in crimes. So the "real" Internet would be portrayed as the dark web, full of unseemly crooks, gangsters, child molesters, etc. You wanting "full Internet" would imply that you're a pedophile. And you're not a pedo, are you?