The main net neutrality talking points always revolve around ISPs picking and choosing who gets access at what cost, but the real issue is consolidation and lack of competition.
Half of all internet traffic today comes from just 30 companies/corporations, the largest of which are of course Google, Facebook and Netflix. Those companies are actually joining forces with ISPs like Comcast and creating mega ISPs that could threaten true competition.
Heck, it’s already impossible to find more than one or two ISP options (that supply useful data rates) in most areas right now. Something like 75% of American homes have only one choice of ISP at 25Mbs or higher. 20% have no broadband access at all.
Net neutrality didn’t directly tackle that problem but it helped “hold the line” so to speak.
Half of all internet traffic today comes from just 30 companies/corporations, the largest of which are of course Google, Facebook and Netflix. Those companies are actually joining forces with ISPs like Comcast and creating mega ISPs that could threaten true competition.
Heck, it’s already impossible to find more than one or two ISP options (that supply useful data rates) in most areas right now. Something like 75% of American homes have only one choice of ISP at 25Mbs or higher. 20% have no broadband access at all.
Net neutrality didn’t directly tackle that problem but it helped “hold the line” so to speak.
Issues like this should be tackled by Congress and not left to 3 unelected commissioners to decide along party lines.
I know of at least one place (and I am sure there are MANY more) where a small town of around 10k people where the city council refuses to allow more than 2 ISPs in town - one DSL (****** 1.5/3mbit) and one cable company with a max of 6mbit. This allows these two crappy ISPs to maintain a choke on the entire town, keeping their local monopoly, which is only 30 miles from a moderate metro with 50-100mbit service - without having to spend a penny to upgrade their crappy networks.
And exactly why would the city council members vote to restrict any competition into the area that would lead to a massive upgrade to the local network and benefit the consumers with greater choice and options?
No, no... not bribery. No cash payouts from the ISPs that benefit from the lack of outside competition. No... what do they get for selling out their constituents?
Free internet service.
That's right... these selfless citizens who dedicate their time to serve their community get free internet access, worth about what, $30-40 a month? Yeah... quite the kickback to f*** over their own voting public.
Yeah, it ain't just the state and national politicians who'll whore themselves out to corporations for penny-ante self-serving benefits.
<edit> And who did Ajit Pai work for as legal counsel before he headed up the FCC committee on Net Neutrality? Yup. Comcast.
Wonder what his bank account looks like these days? Anyone care to hazard a guess?
And exactly why would the city council members vote to restrict any competition into the area that would lead to a massive upgrade to the local network and benefit the consumers with greater choice and options?
No, no... not bribery. No cash payouts from the ISPs that benefit from the lack of outside competition. No... what do they get for selling out their constituents?
Free internet service.
That's right... these selfless citizens who dedicate their time to serve their community get free internet access, worth about what, $30-40 a month? Yeah... quite the kickback to f*** over their own voting public.
Yeah, it ain't just the state and national politicians who'll whore themselves out to corporations for penny-ante self-serving benefits.
<edit> And who did Ajit Pai work for as legal counsel before he headed up the FCC committee on Net Neutrality? Yup. Comcast.
Wonder what his bank account looks like these days? Anyone care to hazard a guess?
Don't worry. Market forces will fill any gap. Any provider willing to throttle any websites cuts a chunk out of their own wallet and will fill someone else's.
Net "neutrality" stifles competition and as a result stifles implementation of innovation. "Net Neutrality" forces support for web content that is not viable in a free market.
Obviously, I oppose "net neutrality".
Woody
Except that these mega-corp style ISPs have NO problem throttling the net for their own profit, while also throttling any competition by paying off those who hold the ability to limit competition in a given area... don't think Comcast is going to stand for any little upstart to try to upstage them if they can pay off a couple politicians to keep all their permits and licenses in limbo...
They're all about limiting regulation for their OWN operations, while using bought-and-paid-for government lackeys to regulate anyone else who wants to make them work for it.
You speak as if "Net Neutrality" is a godsend being blasphemed, crucified, tarred and feathered. Dumping it is a blessing. Besides, Congress(and the rest of government) is prohibited by the First Amendment to interfere. Dumping "Net Neutrality" is a correction; a stepping aside of government from where it has no power granted to interfere.
Woody
Market forces only work when there's a free market. See tRidiot's post and mine about franchise monopolies and tell me about competition from "someone else."
Government is also there to protect a free market. That can also mean stepping in to stop "big business" that is big enough to squash the free market on their own.
Big .gov may be bad, but big business is just as bad. Pretty much anything with vast amounts of money/power can (will?) be evil. Think Catholic church during the Inquisition, or the East India Company.
Big government, big business, big religion. The more they work together, the more screwed the little guy is.
Big .gov may be bad, but big business is just as bad. Pretty much anything with vast amounts of money/power can (will?) be evil. Think Catholic church during the Inquisition, or the East India Company.
Big government, big business, big religion. The more they work together, the more screwed the little guy is.
Who are they going to "pay off" that will risk their career for such a scheme? And, are you saying Comcast is corrupt and would engage in such activity? Does Comcast have a record of engaging in such corruption before "Net Neutrality" was implemented? What about any other ISPs?
I believe "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than socialist doctrine implemented to support its own weak and failing agenda.
Woody
Similar threads
