Monopolies and areas with only one available ISP are the real problem for you americans.
Whether Net Neutrality exists or not would literally not matter if you had more than one internet provider available. ISP gives you a shit deal? Just switch to one that isn't shit. But because you have no choice you get fucked hard.
>HURR if NN is repealed I have to pay 15$ for the premium youtube package Yeah and even if NN exists you still get milked just the same. Whether ISPs charge you a total of 80$ with NN or without it literally does not matter.
You really think even if NN isn't repealed ISPs are going to say >aw damnit... wanted to charge Mr. user 20$ more on average over the next 2 years, but now we can't do that They just slap it on your bill. And what are you going to do... go without internet? Yeah sure...
Only healthy competition can create a market, that is good for consumers.
If ajit pai truly cared about the internet, he'd have dismantled the monopolies before dismantling nn. He didn't.
Have fun with your prohibition 2.0,corporate edition, burgers. You brought it in yourself.
Ian Moore
>Everyone rather posts in the NN FUD and shitpost threads, instead of trying to get to the bottom of the matter
Grayson Nguyen
>Only healthy competition can create a market, that is good for consumers. Yeah, but how are you going to get that with pre-existing de-facto monopolies where ISPs agree which areas certain companies operate? And no, "durrr, then start your own ISP and set up your own network then" isn't an argument here.
Adam Barnes
Those are 2 completely different issues. You can abolish local monopolies and have NN which benefits the consumer. No reason whatsoever to tie those 2 different issues together.
Noah Hall
Net neutrality was a step in the right direction though, retard. Even though it didn't address the problem completely.
Adam Walker
OP only posted a bunch of truisms but no real solution. As always, OP is a faggot.
Connor Rivera
No, it was a bandaid fix trying to cover over a problem that isn't going to away just becuase you put a bandaid over it.
Actually this problem is such that the bandaid fix has been used against you many times, every time a city tries for community broadband guess which argument the incumbents roll out *EVERY SINGLE TIME* - that they don't need competition because of Net Neutrality.
At this point you can either choose a bandaid fixed internet whilst the rest of the world continues to laugh at your slow as fuck speeds - or you can choose to remove the only successful argument (((they))) have against competition.
Whatever you choose, I'll be enjoying my no-NN but hundreds of competing ISPs situation.
Jason Johnson
You're wrong. This isn't a pretty ideal situation in which your abstractions work. This is a formed market with very difficult to meet entry barriers. We can't count on competition to discourage bad practices, we need the state to intervene directly and penalize foul play.
Jacob Bell
Google was willing to put in big bucks - they can't due to enforced monopolies that are being propped up by NN (NN has been used against Google several times) Also many cities have tried for their own Municipal broadband only to be told they can't due to a county/state ordinance preventing them, because the incumbents argue they don't need competition.
Jack Barnes
>they don't need competition because of Net Neutrality Who cares what the argument was? No matter what there would of been different argument.
Isaiah Rogers
>monopolies are bad >regulations are bad You can't have it both ways.
William Sanders
>Regulations that enforce monopolies are bad What is so hard for you understand about this?
Nathaniel Ramirez
>monopolies are being propped up by NN Wrong again, retard.
>Mark Jen, the chief technical officer of a small internet provider which was founded last year by a group of former Square employees, said that complying with net neutrality doesn’t require any work.
>“The default configuration of all of the [networking] equipment is to [follow net neutrality],” Jen says. “While net neutrality sounds like rules and regulations, it’s actually just saying everybody has to run stuff in the default mode, which is as fast as possible and great for everybody.”
>Rudy Rucker, co-founder of another small wireless internet provider named Monkeybrains, said his company hadn’t encountered any difficulties either. “Maybe there’s something I’m missing,” he said, “but it’s not bogging us down.”
>Small ISPs haven’t received the never-ending complaints some have feared.
>Peggy Dolgenos, the co-founder and co-CEO of an ISP named Cruzio that’s located in Santa Cruz, California, said her company has been rapidly improving its equipment. “We’ve been upgrading our infrastructure as fast as we can,” she says. Her company currently has 35 employees and serves about 9,000 customers. “We’ve been investing like crazy. We’re about to invest in a really big local project to install fiber optic cable in our downtown.” She hopes to start offering the new fiber service sometime this fall.
>Many smaller ISPs said they saw net neutrality as an advantage for their business, too. “If you’re looking at what companies will get paid by big providers like Netflix, it’s not smaller ISPs, it’s large ISPs who already have practically a monopoly position,” Dolgenos says. “They’ll just cement their position, and it’ll just crush competition.”
>Over 40 small ISPs wrote their own letter to the FCC last month requesting that net neutrality stay in place.
How you are going to get rid of this regulations by removing NN?
Hunter Garcia
Defining ISPs as common carriers does not and have not enforced monopolies. Why the hell are you lying blatantly like that? Don't you have anything better to do than to spread misinformation on a taiwanese basketweaving board?
Elijah Hernandez
>And those arguments would have failed... They didn't fail before NN, you are forgetting that ISP monopoly predates NN.
Xavier Davis
None of that has anything to do with what I said at all though? Where did I say NN would be hard fro small ISPs to enforce?
I said NN props up existing monopolies - your post even shows that to an extent - only wISPs are able to compete in these areas and now that they exist, they too are trying to prevent to competitors from hitting 'their turf'
Evan Gray
>being this dense Small ISPs are the new competition, idiot.
Sage and report, OP isn't even a paid shill, just a dumbass who believed the propaganda.
Logan Perry
no, it's a duopoly setup.
Thomas Wright
user if thats true then removing NN would be a good thing. Now I do hope its true as these larger fuckers tank with their decades old infrastructure charging 5x the price for basic shit
Brayden Butler
>Whether ISPs charge you a total of 80$ with NN or without it literally does not matter. Yes, it literally matters because they also will charge Amazon, Netflix, ... on the other end if NN is repealed.
Of course you'll indirectly pay that, too, and it'll nicely distribute over the people who can pay for it without them loosing customers.
And sites / services that don't pay will become shit (bandwidth hogged by businesses and the paying stores) or even inaccessible.
So yea, NN matters even if you can't just have NN to have a good nation or good infrastructure or good ISPs.
Zachary Adams
Why do anti-NN shills believe that the competition actually emerges?
Henry Harris
> NN props up existing monopolies It actually acts against existing monopolies.
Normies would all flock to, say, Google Fiber and T-Mobile if those were the only two services where Amazon and Facebook worked well or where they were offered for free.
Dominic Collins
>because they also will charge Amazon, Netflix, ... on the other end if NN is repealed. Except they never did that before and no one has been able to provide an example of anywhere on the planet this is done on a fixed line connection (mobile data is a very different animal - fixed point wireless that isn't roaming counts as fixed line here)
