5 ms·
If internet service were a luxury product, I'd agree. However, an internet connection is every bit as important as having a phone (land or cell) these days. As
by gtaylor 13y ago
If internet service were a luxury product, I'd agree. However, an internet connection is every bit as important as having a phone (land or cell) these days.
Assuming we completely de-regulate, you'd still have municipal governments striking these anti-competitive monopoly deals. In fact, there'd be no barrier to it at all, since we're de-regulated in this case.
Don't like Comcast? Better not move to City A, because they "own" it, even though some of the fiber was paid for by the residents.
- gojomo 13y agoIf that's the problem, why not prohibit municipalities from creating local monopolies? Why have the FCC dictate limits on the design of network pricing and services everywhere, even where there are many options?
- gtaylor 13y agoThat sounds like regulation, to me.
- gojomo 13y agoLimiting governments from making corrupt or short-sighted mistakes isn't usually considered 'regulation', but even if it is, this 'regulation' is also simultaneously local-franchise 'deregulation'. And it's more sensible, since competition is a cure-all, than federal 'neutrality' rules about what services are allowable.
- gtaylor 13y agoLooking back the this parent's original statement: > I'd prefer that government entities remove themselves from open Internet pursuits entirely. What you are describing doesn't follow this. You are in support of regulation, the thread OP isn't.