|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
He then comments on the monopolies in ISPs and how they're bad. He doesn't describe any cause for the monopolies and instead jumps to concluding that because there is a lack of competition, we need net neutrality. Again, that's not the story of what's actually going on. The main cause of ISP monopolization is municipal regulation. Because of these it's near impossible to enter the market.
Great point
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Net neutrality is a way to further ensure that a lack of competition will not be changed.
Wrong. You are being misled wuf, net neutrality is NOT the reason for lack of competition among ISPs. C’mon man.
Quite the opposite. Net neutrality is being used by ISPs to kill competing services. Fuck off competition. Tons of examples on that.
Proponents of Net Neutrality legislation identify instances when Internet access providers have inhibited competition by blocking consumers use of independent VoIP service, and by prohibiting consumers from enjoying video programming over the IP network for more than ten consecutive minutes. Proponents also point to recent comments by AT&T Chairman Ed Whitacre, stating that his company intends to seek payment by independent information providers that heretofore have enjoyed “free” carriage to consumers over the Internet. Net Neutrality proponents assert that consumers already pay for network access, and that networks can seek higher prices from users of higher amounts of bandwidth – but that networks should not be able to discriminate against content providers based solely on the identity of the information source or the competitive attributes of the information being provided.
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/dont-g...ople-business/
If you are not a technical person, not involved in this for some reason, using your internet just to check your mail and shitpost on forums, you will tend to take the exact opposite conclusion because of the amount of people on payroll to cloud your judgement.
Keep in mind what I just quoted above. This is an FTC paper on the subject:
In 2015, the FCC subjected broadband Internet service provid-ers to Title II regulation. It did so to enforce net neutrality rules, which require ISPs (internet service providers) to treat all content on their networks equally. The principal justification is to prevent ISPs, in delivering content to their subscribers, from favoring their own content or that of other creators who pay for “fast lanes.” Should such discrimination flourish—the concern goes—ISPs could relegate disfavored content providers to second-tier modes of access to consumers, degrading competition.
The rationalization for net neutrality regulation, however, is hard to square with the facts. There is, after all, virtually no evi-dence of ISPs excluding rival content. Two reasons likely explain the paucity of anticompetitive conduct. First, market forces driven by consumer demand would punish broadband service providers that throttled or excluded desired content. And, second, antitrust would forbid efforts by ISPs with significant market power to fore-close rival content. Yet, the FCC’s decision to enact broad net neu-trality rules, which the D.C. Circuit subsequently upheld in 2016, repudiated the view that antitrust is a viable solution to the threat of net neutrality violations.
You can find these “reputable” articles by bonafide shills everywhere on the internet, in all sorts of legit looking publications too; WSJ, ITIF for crying out loud. I could link you but you might step even deeper into that trap.
I just showed you however, factually, how AT&T fucked over its competitor (Skype) on VOIP. This FTC paper states that “there are no facts” of “anti-competitive behaviour”.
I got more examples too, but I think (hope) you get the point.
|