That would work if most of the US wasn’t served by only 1 or 2 ISPs. I would be fine with the repeal if sufficient competition was present first.
Repealing net neutrality is supporting ISP monopolies and hardly affecting the free market…
Why should there be site/service-specific packages in the first place? A packet is a packet, whether for robotics videos on YouTube or browsing the VEX Forum. The internet was meant to be free and open, not segregated.
The whole point of net neutrality was to provide for internet freedom in light of the monopolies and lack of competition in the industry…
ISPs don’t have competition. They’re also not going to expand to last-mile Americans because it’s expensive and doesn’t make any business sense to do so.
I think everyone agrees on that. If I want to use the Internet to check emails, I’ll pay for the lowest tier of bandwidth. If I want to use the Internet to stream lots of movies, I’ll pay for the highest tier of bandwidth. I definitely shouldn’t pay specifically to access movies though, that’s a well-documented slippery slope that will lead to limited access to information based on socioeconomic status. I’d really recommend reading this 43-page letter to the FCC from some of the leading experts and founders of the Internet.
There are many solutions to last mile. I have been involved in several deployed in other countries. US Government regulation isn’t going to make innovation more likely.
ISP example:If an ISP owns a territory, you are just going to have to put up with it(because of no competition).
Company example(lets say Ford): If a Ford does something bad, you could always switch to GM.
In the link above, it would show that there are no competitors(ISPs) in a lot of areas
Also how is deregulation going to bring innovation from ISPs?
The FCC made the internet a Title II service just last year. Monopolies are not the result of Net Neutrality being passed. Net neutrality being repealed is bad because it ** allows ISPs to further increase the cost of the internet with no regulation. **
The reality in the vast majority of the US is that people do not have that choice. Until a year ago, the only choice my area had was Comcast. Now we have the option to bulk the cost of laying new wire to get internet from AT&T.
An actual competitor would be able to take away market share from major ISPs which would incentivize them to improve. I have attached a picture of a map showing places in the US with more than one ISP. Looking at places with at least 3 options, you see considerably less green. These 12 companies control 280 million internet subscribers. None of these major corporations compete with each other. Why?
There coverage is strategically placed so most of them have monopolies in their area
** They all have the same policies. ** When all of the internet providers do the same thing, there is no reason for any of them to improve.
@dana and @Mystical Pie, I am very much aware of areas with few broadband choices. I simply do not understand the point you appear to be supporting, which @artsy.andrew originally raised. He said
Are you saying they should care about us? If so, why do you believe that? I don’t understand that.
It doesn’t matter if the ISPs care about us (they don’t). What we are saying is that having good competitors incentivizes the ISPs to provide better service.
Many times, trying to understand what you mean. I followed the link, which I’m already very well acquainted with, but I looked at it again anyway.
I’m trying to understand what brought you to believe it is a corporation’s responsibility to “care about us.” I thought maybe you meant something deeper.
I asked why ISPs(corporations) should care about the consumer. I believe that they don’t care. As long as ISPs have monopolies on areas, they will continue to not care.
I 100% agree with you. However, I don’t think hoping is enough anymore. We all have to adopt these positions as we grow into the work force. As the youth, we are the only ones right now that aren’t bitter about past events, and we understand how all these events affect the people without bias. We need to take these positions over, and I believe that is the only way to solve all our problems.
As for net neutrality being repealed, I truly don’t understand why people are acting so ridiculously. Repealing it will NOT increase competition or do anything good for the economy. If anything, it is handicapping the poor and the youth because we will not have access to all internet technologies. I’m not sure how bad it will actually be, but just the fact that it was repealed shows how little we think in today’s world.
Okay. I’m not trying to be annoying here, I’m trying to understand how you think about this, and what matters to you, and what qualities you equate with the positive. Because I want to understand, and maybe to be able to see the world through the eyes of people that have your outlook.
I don’t know whether ISPs “care about us” but I suspect it’s not high on their list of concerns. So we likely agree on that point, though I haven’t ever put much thought into it before.
I gather that you think it is important whether or not they “care about us.” Why?
Are you using “care about us” as a proxy for something else?
The FCC made a stupid decision which will make the internet, the thing over 250 million Americans have access to which was the only fair playing field, a matter of money and political favoritism. Even though 76% of American’s want it, 81% of Democrats want it and 73% of Republicans want it the decision to repeal such a large concept and influential concept was in the hands of five people and the result was against the greater will of the people. What a great democracy we have. I think everyone on this thread can agree: The fight for Net Neutrality is far from over!
