3 ms·
I disagree. It's far better to address the root of the problem rather than just treating the symptoms on the surface. The symptoms on the surface are that mon
by dominik 18y ago
I disagree.
It's far better to address the root of the problem rather than just treating the symptoms on the surface.
The symptoms on the surface are that monopolistic broandband providers discriminate against traffic or websites.
The root of the problem is that there are monopolistic broandband providers rather than a competitive free market.
Why are there monopolistic broandband providers? Where do we get our Internet from? Generally, either DSL or Cable. DSL comes via the children of another monopolistic (or at least oligopolistic) industry: telecom. And cable comes via yet another monopolistic (or at least oligopolistic) industry: cable television. Monopoly breeds monopoly, ever expanding into new industries to monopolize, more often with the government's blessings than not.
- mattmaroon 18y agoBut we're in a system where addressing the root problem isn't going to happen any time soon (and is way beyond the purview of the FCC) and without a stopgap measure we'll have nothing. We'll have a broadband oligarchy able to charge Google to be delivered to customers while Yahoo isn't. We should fix the root problem, but in the mean time a stopgap is necessary to ensure the web's economic viability. Without that we risk falling behind the rest of the world. It's too idealistic and impractical to wait.
- dominik 18y agoI think the stopgap might create a problem worse than the one it's trying to solve :-/
- mattmaroon 18y agoWhat problem is worse than monopolistic broadband providers being able to sell favor to anyone with a web presence? That seems like it would jeopardize the entire future of our information economy.