Quote:
Originally Posted by metalskins
Let's stick to real example as to how it pertains to the internet. One can access Netflix no matter if they're on Verizon, Spectrum, Comcast, or AT&T. Many consumers don't have a choice in where their internet service comes from. So, let's say their only choice is Comcast but Comcast either charges more for full speed Netflix or outright blocks them. Well, you as a consumer, have had your choice limited without NN.
Where I live, I have a choice between AT&T and Spectrum internet. AT&T has a bandwidth cap, so I can't go with them. Spectrum does not. However, both provide equal access to Netflix. Let's say Spectrum decides to go the way of Comcast and drops any connection to Netflix, well, I no longer have a choice to enjoy Netflix.
Or another choice, let's say Spectrum limits its users to Yahoo, but I want to use Google. Well, tough luck, I either have to pay extra to use Google, or I'm stuck using Yahoo search. Another choice being taken away.
The issue is, in capitalism, the thought is the best product wins out, and the bad ones die out. That's not the case when the ISP in your area is pretty much a monopoly. They can put out a crappy product and because they hold the keys, they force you to use a crappy product instead of you having a choice for a better product.
|
The examples I use, Ma Bell and the Post Office, are historical examples that we can actually see what happened when monopolies were broken and regulations reduced. In both cases it was a win for consumers.
What I hear here, is the expectant continuation of monopolistic ISP's in local regions. BUT with advances in wifi and broadband availability, those should break up naturally much like the regional baby bells early on had semi monopolistic tendencies, but now are competitive players in there markets, not monopolies that leave consumers no choice.
I agree that monopolistic tendencies and handshake deals need to be broken up, but easing competitive pressures on monopolies is not the way to get that done.