3 ms·
You make a good point. Antitrust actions should be a function of both behavior and size. IMO, actions of ISPs have been more nefarious than FANG, https://www.f
by studentrob 7y ago
You make a good point. Antitrust actions should be a function of both behavior and size. IMO, actions of ISPs have been more nefarious than FANG,
https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/expla...
https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-violating-the-old-net-neutrality-rules/ https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-violating-t...
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoWhy not both? (Apart from politics, obvs.) As an occasional content creator it's impossible not to be aware that the ISPs can limit access to the bandwidth I need, while any of the platforms I might use - PayPal, Ebay, Google/YouTube, Amazon, Apple, even Etsy - can kill an income stream at any time and keep all my earnings just because they want to, with no convincing good-faith resolution procedures and no (affordable) recourse.
- studentrob 7y ago> any of the platforms I might use - ... - can kill an income stream at any time Being able to access the internet at a competitive rate is more important IMO. FANG platforms depend on your ability to reach them. Net neutrality, I'm convinced, is one of the only unifying political issues today. Breaking up Google isn't going to make people forget the expensive, low quality service from monopolistic taxpayer-funded broadband networks.