Net Neutrality

[Gerhardt]

Do you trust a government...

No, I do not. And I cut the question off there because I trust no level of government. I don't trust our local school system, police, county government, state, nor federal government. There is abuse, waste and corruption at every level. Yes, it's still, by far, the best place in the world to live. But no, I do not trust a government.

You know who I trust? POA Mods, that's it. And my dog.

This is more like telling...a retailer that they can't negotiate favorable shipping rates with FedEx.

I know nothing about the subject, but from what little I've read... If I'm the retailer in this scenario, w/o net neutrality wouldn't this be more like the heavies having the capability to tell me I can't use FedEx, and them being able to block my access to fedex.com?

 

[jsstevens]

I'm a capitalistic free market guy. Always have been. But the reality of market forces are competition has to be viable. And currently in large swaths of the US, there is only one viable ISP. And in many cases that ISP is also a content provider.

I live in an affluent neighborhood of a major metropolitan area. There are exactly 2 broadband providers in my neighborhood. One has actual speeds in excess of 10 times the other. Guess which one I grit my teeth and put up with? They are BOTH also content providers. In direct competition with Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, etc., etc.

I also need signifianct upload speed which means satellite internet won't cut it. And there's not likely to be anybody else who digs up the streets and puts in more fiber. So I don't really have a choice short of moving. As bad as the cable company sucks, I'll bend over and take it.

I've even looked into using a Cellular provider for internet and they don't handle the data. (I work from home sometimes which requires the upload speed and some of the data usage).

John

 

[Rushie]

Maybe the railroads is a good analogy. With no regulation at all, monopolies developed that abused the customers. Then the government stepped in, basically took over completely, and hence totally ruined the industry. So then in a fit of logic and insight, they passed the Staggers act in 1980 which basically took the government almost completely out of it. There was left a tiny board for simple oversight. After some adjustment, this eventually resulted in a great rebirth of the rail freight industry, but now there have been some abuses again, such as captive shippers (customers stuck out where there is only one railroad so no competition) and one carrier being very stingy about giving the public access to public tariff documents. So the Surface Transportation Board is taking a little more active role in regulation, issuing rules that are a bit more stringent and probably necessary.

But that is not the same thing as completely running the industry as a "utility" as in the internet example. The rail industry now is about where I think it should be, pretty much unregulated, but there is a pathway to air grievances.

Probably the internet should be something similar, completely free market but if gross abuses occur there should be a pathway to complain and get relief. There is probably never a steady state perfect situation in any of this, things will always be dynamic as parties, both public and private, try to gain power.

 

[Gerhardt]

I think most of us are limited in the ISPs to choose from. I live in a middle-class neighborhood in an average town. My options for internet service are limited to one provider. One. I didn't know this until several years ago, but there are a few ISPs operating in our town. But the town is divided into districts, for lack of a better term, and only one ISP is allowed to handle customers in each district.

 

[denverpilot]

But the town is divided into districts, for lack of a better term, and only one ISP is allowed to handle customers in each district.

Hmmm. Look at that. A root-cause problem here that wasn’t caused by the carriers, that triggers all the rest of the problems...

 

[timwinters]

The Dec 5th 1A show had an hour long discussion on Net Neutrality (actually 47 minutes).

The first half’s guest was the FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr who, of course, was for eliminating neutrality.

The second half’s guest was G.G. Sewn (??), she is a “distinguished fellow” at the Georgetown Institute of Technology, Law and Policy, who was for maintaining net neutrality

This show made me more firm in my opinion that net neutrality needs to remain. Why? Mostly because for 30 minutes Commissioner Carr was asked many direct questions by both the show’s host and callers…and he answered exactly NONE of them. He stuck to his talking points and blew a bunch of BS.

My favorite was when a caller asked him to “give us just one example of….” (I don’t recall the exact question).

Carr’s answer “there are numerous examples in the published report, read it.” (paraphrasing)

WTF?

I was really disappointed in the show’s host, Joshua Johnson, for not holding his feet to the fire and making him answer the questions…or at least pointing out to him that he wasn’t and was instead just blowing smoke…

I was similarly disappointed in Ms. Sewn’s line of BS although she did give a lot more direct answers than Carr did.

If you're going to be out working in your garage for an hour…or putting your office back together like I was…it’s a pretty good listen.

https://the1a.org/audio/#/shows/2017-12-05/ask-the-fcc/112922/@00:00

But, really, the bottom line is that it all boils down to this:

 

[tspear]

Hmmm. Look at that. A root-cause problem here that wasn’t caused by the carriers, that triggers all the rest of the problems...

Actually, the carriers likely required it. I have sat in a few city and county council meetings where ISPs were invited to discuss. Basically, every one wanted a monopoly for an area; the argument was it was the only way to make it cost effective. You really have to be a big area or have a legacy infrastructure which now can carry multiple signals to have any competition. e.g. You had phone and cable service, now both companies can have the last mile.

Tim

 

[Lachlan]

Where I live there is one ISP with DSL only. Or there’s satellite, which very very few people use due to excessive foliage and rain or snow interference. Or there is limited cellular data, but that’s a whole different issue. So, here, if you want a home internet connection you have one choice: Frontier Communications DSL. Jus5 adding a data point regarding access.

 

[James331]

At least with the government, the voters have the opportunity to "throw the bums out." It's happened before, and it will happen again.

Lol, you must me new here!



Speaking of bills going forward, lest we forget the bill to fund violating our 4th amendment rights, because who needs that much privacy!

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/12/dont-reauthorize-nsa-spying-must-pass-funding-bill

 

[Palmpilot]

... Lol, you must me new here!...

Are you implying that the party in power does not change from time to time?

If you have a point to make, feel free to make it.

 

[James331]

Are you implying that the party in power does not change from time to time?

If you have a point to make, feel free to make it.

 

[Palmpilot]

You really can't tell the difference in how one party governs vs the other?

 

[James331]

You really can't tell the difference in how one party governs vs the other?

The color of their ties or how they talk and what they "say"?
Forget all that, look at actions, look at mainstreet, look at our foreign policy.

Both have the same modus operandi, just a diffrent sales pitch, here's a little example on a few aspects

They all war monger, they all are corrosive to the constitution, they all want more, more power, more money, and they all would watch your entire bloodline die for a couple approval points.



Don't kid yourself, the government is not your friend and it doesn't serve you, no more than a farmer serves his cows by feeding them before they take that nice little drive to the slaughter house.

 

[luvflyin]

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it

 

[Half Fast]

I'm a capitalistic free market guy. Always have been. But the reality of market forces are competition has to be viable. And currently in large swaths of the US, there is only one viable ISP. And in many cases that ISP is also a content provider.

I live in an affluent neighborhood of a major metropolitan area. There are exactly 2 broadband providers in my neighborhood. One has actual speeds in excess of 10 times the other. Guess which one I grit my teeth and put up with? They are BOTH also content providers. In direct competition with Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, etc., etc.

I also need signifianct upload speed which means satellite internet won't cut it. And there's not likely to be anybody else who digs up the streets and puts in more fiber. So I don't really have a choice short of moving. As bad as the cable company sucks, I'll bend over and take it.

I've even looked into using a Cellular provider for internet and they don't handle the data. (I work from home sometimes which requires the upload speed and some of the data usage).

John

And many places in rural America have only one car dealership. And only one hardware store. And only one bank. And only one doctor. And only one restaurant.

I just don't see that as sufficient reason to impose the heavy federal hand.

 

[Palmpilot]

The color of their ties or how they talk and what they "say"?
Forget all that, look at actions, look at mainstreet, look at our foreign policy.

Both have the same modus operandi, just a diffrent sales pitch, here's a little example on a few aspects

They all war monger, they all are corrosive to the constitution, they all want more, more power, more money, and they all would watch your entire bloodline die for a couple approval points.



Don't kid yourself, the government is not your friend and it doesn't serve you, no more than a farmer serves his cows by feeding them before they take that nice little drive to the slaughter house.

I agree with many of your criticisms, but you're presenting a very selective picture. In addition to the change in policy on net neutrality which is the subject of this thread, major differences in the way the parties govern include the type of judges they appoint, and the kind of legislation they pass on health care, tax structure, environmental protection, and personal freedom to name just a few. If you think there's no significant difference between them, you must be wearing blinders.

 

[Palmpilot]

And many places in rural America have only one car dealership. And only one hardware store. And only one bank. And only one doctor. And only one restaurant.

I just don't see that as sufficient reason to impose the heavy federal hand.

In each of those examples, if the service or pricing get too far out of line, people usually have practical alternatives in the next town over. What alternative do they have if there's only one Internet provider in town?

Federal anti-trust legislation was no doubt heavy-handed, but it restored competition, and competition is a prerequisite for the free market to work.

 

[jsstevens]

And many places in rural America have only one car dealership. And only one hardware store. And only one bank. And only one doctor. And only one restaurant.

I just don't see that as sufficient reason to impose the heavy federal hand.

I'd be happy if ISP couldn't be content providers. I suppose that's a "heavy hand" too. If you only have one car dealer you can buy a car elsewhere. It' s not as easy but it's possible. (Try Carvana, for example.) This is more like having the electric utility also sell appliances. And then making it so if you use anybody else's appliances your power goes off for 20 minutes an hour or costs twice as much.

John

 

[RJM62]

I don't object to companies and other users being required to pay for what they use, but what concerns me is the potential for anti-competitive practices on the part of Internet service providers. For example, to my mind:

An ISP charging all streaming services the same price per gigabit for comparable speed = OK.

An ISP having its own streaming service and charging competitors significantly more for comparable service, or denying them access to high speed service altogether = not OK. (Does anyone know whether this will now be allowed?)

That might be analogous to the Paramount case if the costs to competing streaming services effectively prices them out of the market.

Rich

 

[Half Fast]

In each of those examples, if the service or pricing get too far out of line, people usually have practical alternatives in the next town over. What alternative do they have if there's only one Internet provider in town?

Federal anti-trust legislation was no doubt heavy-handed, but it restored competition, and competition is a prerequisite for the free market to work.

But competition does not have to be nationwide. Many businesses have local monopolies in certain places. Should we regulate the press if there's only one newspaper available?

And while hardwired internet options are limited in some places, satellite providers are an option and so are cellular providers.

Just because some people have limited purchase options does not mean we bring in the feds.

 

[paflyer]

It's also hilarious how we spend like 80% of the income tax by taking one hour out of every four worked money earned, to fund a military that sends mainstreet out to get shot up and blown up under the banner of "defending" against places like North Korea and china, yet that same government does its damnedest to make our country more like those same places by constantly attacking our constitutional rights, especially 1A, 2A and 4A and limiting what we can see and say.

Check your math.

 

[James331]

Check your math.

And basically government, VA, international, would all be much smaller without "military"

 

[mryan75]

And many places in rural America have only one car dealership. And only one hardware store. And only one bank. And only one doctor. And only one restaurant.

I just don't see that as sufficient reason to impose the heavy federal hand.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a car from that one dealership, shop at that one hardware store, use that one bank. One fundamental principal that even libertarians (and those who describe themselves as such nowadays generally have no idea about anything even remotely libertarian, and are actually hard-core Republicans) agree upon is that the government should ensure competetition and be strictly anti-trust. That’s what we’re talking about here. Anti-trust has been out the window since the 80’s. It’s really time for a comeback.

 

[cowman]

And many places in rural America have only one car dealership. And only one hardware store. And only one bank. And only one doctor. And only one restaurant.

I just don't see that as sufficient reason to impose the heavy federal hand.

I live in an area kind of like that and the way that works is we drive to another town to buy cars, get healthcare, buy lumber, etc if we're not happy with the local services. A lot of people do this and it's a fairly practical option... and of course you can always go buy stuff on the internet.

However, I have one ISP available to me. What am I supposed to do if they were to start price gouging or limiting what websites I can use or how fast? Pack up and move? Drive half an hour to the nearest free wifi every time I need to do something online? Drive a few miles up the road where I have cell signal and pay those outrageous rates? I don't have a practical workable alternative for this.

Now I hate heavy handed government regulation. I hate government in general and believe that whenever in doubt on an issue that we should err on the side of liberty and not pass a law. However, sometimes it's a necessary evil and if some ISPs are going to pursue the courses they've been heading towards then I think some level of intervention is needed. IMO, because I don't believe the government has my best interest in mind any more than the greedy corporate ISPs I want to see that intervention be very basic and very limited- just a simply worded consumer protection law saying they can't discriminate between bits.

 

[paflyer]

Nobody is forcing you to buy a car from that one dealership, shop at that one hardware store, use that one bank. One fundamental principal that even libertarians (and those who describe themselves as such nowadays generally have no idea about anything even remotely libertarian, and are actually hard-core Republicans) agree upon is that the government should ensure competetition and be strictly anti-trust. That’s what we’re talking about here. Anti-trust has been out the window since the 80’s. It’s really time for a comeback.

I’d laugh if one day the major ISPs shut down everything for an hour to show the snowflakes and scheming content controllers who is the boss.

 

[paflyer]

I live in an area kind of like that and the way that works is we drive to another town to buy cars, get healthcare, buy lumber, etc if we're not happy with the local services. A lot of people do this and it's a fairly practical option... and of course you can always go buy stuff on the internet.

However, I have one ISP available to me. What am I supposed to do if they were to start price gouging or limiting what websites I can use or how fast? Pack up and move? Drive half an hour to the nearest free wifi every time I need to do something online? Drive a few miles up the road where I have cell signal and pay those outrageous rates? I don't have a practical workable alternative for this.

Now I hate heavy handed government regulation. I hate government in general and believe that whenever in doubt on an issue that we should err on the side of liberty and not pass a law. However, sometimes it's a necessary evil and if some ISPs are going to pursue the courses they've been heading towards then I think some level of intervention is needed. IMO, because I don't believe the government has my best interest in mind any more than the greedy corporate ISPs I want to see that intervention be very basic and very limited- just a simply worded consumer protection law saying they can't discriminate between bits.

The world doesn’t owe you internet access.

 

[Norman]

I live in a typical burg where one ISP, Comcast, has been granted an exclusive franchise to cover the entire township with [high speed?] internet the price of which sucks for services rendered. There is an option, [ATT&T DSL or dial up] and the price between those services is very close in price. Comcast has their own cables and rapes their customers for faster service. ATT&T's DSL service is much slower and they still stick it to their customers. Their dial up service takes forever to download pages with graphics so that effectively creates a monopoly for Comcast.Which ever service you choose is less than desirable so the providers have you by the gonads.

I would like to see another company be allowed to install fiber optic cables and offer some true competition but our township board granted exclusive rights to Comcast so we are basically screwed by their decision. Folks in the country where population is scarce are the one really suffering.

 

[Palmpilot]

But competition does not have to be nationwide. Many businesses have local monopolies in certain places. Should we regulate the press if there's only one newspaper available?

As long as the consumer has reasonable alternatives, I don't think that government intervention is needed to ensure competition. I think that TV, radio, and the Internet have eliminated the possibility of any news outlet having a monopoly on news distribution anywhere in the U.S. However, given the importance that the Internet has achieved in commerce and in our society in general, if an Internet provider were the only one in town, set up its own news service, and prevented its customers from accessing other news services over the Internet, I would see that as a serious enough problem to justify government intervention.

And while hardwired internet options are limited in some places, satellite providers are an option and so are cellular providers.

Whether those options provided enough competition to prevent monopolistic practices would depend on whether whether the costs and level of service were comparable to the hardwired service.

Just because some people have limited purchase options does not mean we bring in the feds.

If the local monopoly exists because no other business wants to enter that market, then federal intervention would probably not be justified. But if the monopoly is being enforced by the intervention of local government, that is no better than federal intervention, IMO.

 

[denverpilot]

The world doesn’t owe you internet access.

LOL. I think y’all should pay via taxes to lay fiber to my rural house!!! (Kidding of course, but it’s the same argument as “neutrality”. “It’s not faaaaaair!” Haha! I do secretly hate my coworker who can get 2Gb/s at home if he wants though.)

Comcast has their own cables and rapes their customers for faster service. ATT&T's DSL service is much slower and they still stick it to their customers. Their dial up service takes forever to download pages with graphics so that effectively creates a monopoly for Comcast.Which ever service you choose is less than desirable so the providers have you by the gonads.

I would like to see another company be allowed to install fiber optic cables and offer some true competition but our township board granted exclusive rights to Comcast so we are basically screwed by their decision. Folks in the country where population is scarce are the one really suffering.

Time to fire the town Board.

Meanwhile I do chuckle when people say anything less than $100/Mo to deliver ANYTHING to a residential location is “sticking it to customers”. I paid well over $100/Mo to “enjoy” 128Kb/s over ISDN to my residence years before anybody even used the term “work from home”.

People just want giant networks built for free. Has always been thus since they got that first SDSL Service before the carriers even offered it and the local loop guy spent three days removing all the bridge taps from the copper circuit so it would even sync up.

But yes, the major error was municipalities taking over the role of defining winners and losers via granted monopolies after Bell wasn’t allowed to do it anymore. Remember all the ads the cable industry pushed on broadcast TV about how the telephone poles would be a huge eyesore with the cables from ten providers on them, and everyone should make sure their local government gave them the exclusive rights to the bottom of the power company’s power poles?

LOL! People bought that crap, too. Just like they buy this Federal power grab hiding inside a cutsie term of endearment “Neutrality”.

If municipalities would have been smart they would have allowed the exclusive rights of way to someone while also requiring them to be a Common Carrier. Then we wouldn’t be even having these conversations about the last mile.

 

[cowman]

The world doesn’t owe you internet access.

That's why I pay for it...

However, just like with anything else I'm paying for the company providing it has some obligation to deliver it to me in a usable fashion under honest terms for a reasonable price if I pay that bill.

 

[tspear]

I’d laugh if one day the major ISPs shut down everything for an hour to show the snowflakes and scheming content controllers who is the boss.

It has happened multiple times before the net neutrality rules came into play. It actually is why Verizon and Comcast sued the government over the first set of net neutrality rules.

@James331 Do not look at discretionary spending. Look at total spending instead. Discretionary does not cover "entitlements"; which is the largest portion of federal spending.

Tim

 

[James331]

Still, if y'all think that removing net neutrality means less government influence in the Internet search results you see, or what you can and can't find online, you don't get how the ISPs and government work.

It's like when a woman says "nothing's wrong".
Getting government out of Internet by removing net neutrality, lol, government was like "hold my beer"

 

[cowman]

Actually let's use an aviation related analogy. Suppose UPS, Fedex, and the USPS all decided to add a charge if you wanted anything from aircraft/pilot suppliers or delay it a week if you didn't pay? Would that be considered fair? Would aircraft spruce/sportys/etc consider that fair? The world doesn't owe you flying supplies after all. Nope fair is fair they can do whatever they want right? You wouldn't complain right.

Net neutrality is essentially trying to stop exactly that except we're dealing with electronic pulses down a wire instead of boxes of goods.

 

[denverpilot]

Actually let's use an aviation related analogy. Suppose UPS, Fedex, and the USPS all decided to add a charge if you wanted anything from aircraft/pilot suppliers or delay it a week if you didn't pay? Would that be considered fair? Would aircraft spruce/sportys/etc consider that fair? The world doesn't owe you flying supplies after all. Nope fair is fair they can do whatever they want right? You wouldn't complain right.

Net neutrality is essentially trying to stop exactly that except we're dealing with electronic pulses down a wire instead of boxes of goods.

All three add odd surcharges all the time. Very poor analogy.

Remember when they pretended the price of shipping didn’t include fuel and added a fuel surcharge? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

 

[jesse]

LOL. I think y’all should pay via taxes to lay fiber to my rural house!!! (Kidding of course, but it’s the same argument as “neutrality”. “It’s not faaaaaair!” Haha! I do secretly hate my coworker who can get 2Gb/s at home if he wants though.)



Time to fire the town Board.

Meanwhile I do chuckle when people say anything less than $100/Mo to deliver ANYTHING to a residential location is “sticking it to customers”. I paid well over $100/Mo to “enjoy” 128Kb/s over ISDN to my residence years before anybody even used the term “work from home”.

People just want giant networks built for free. Has always been thus since they got that first SDSL Service before the carriers even offered it and the local loop guy spent three days removing all the bridge taps from the copper circuit so it would even sync up.

But yes, the major error was municipalities taking over the role of defining winners and losers via granted monopolies after Bell wasn’t allowed to do it anymore. Remember all the ads the cable industry pushed on broadcast TV about how the telephone poles would be a huge eyesore with the cables from ten providers on them, and everyone should make sure their local government gave them the exclusive rights to the bottom of the power company’s power poles?

LOL! People bought that crap, too. Just like they buy this Federal power grab hiding inside a cutsie term of endearment “Neutrality”.

If municipalities would have been smart they would have allowed the exclusive rights of way to someone while also requiring them to be a Common Carrier. Then we wouldn’t be even having these conversations about the last mile.

For some reason nobody ever blames the municipalities - which is ridiculous because they're the ones with the power. Thankfully a Lincoln giant (Nelnet) finally stepped up and bought a fiber company. The city agreed to lease the remaining conduit space if they delivered fiber to every home. It's an exclusive thing which sort of sucks however its a lot better than time warner. The municipal also required that Allo agree to remain net neutral, with no data caps, or paid prioritization. They also cannot charge setup or installation fees. Service levels are (up & down) 20 mbps ($45/mo), 100 mbps ($60/mo), 1 gigabit ($90/mo). Flat rate taxes and all fees included.

The allo crews ran all the fiber in my neighborhood in about a week awhile back. I should be hooked up sometime this spring.

Point is -- there are options if local money and the city work together. They're literally running fiber underground to every home in the city in about a 2 year timeframe. Lincoln is a decent size.

All it took was the strength of a local financial services giant (100M project) and a city municipal that wanted free fiber to a lot of their buildings. We didn't need the Feds to build **** for us.

 

[denverpilot]

For some reason nobody ever blames the municipalities - which is ridiculous because they're the ones with the power.

They took that power early on. Government has had its heads so far buried in cable company execs asses for so long, nobody even notices.

The Colorado governor’s mansion is literally Bill Daniels’ old house. Daniels could not have done what he did without convincing local governments they “deserved” power over who got to run cables to houses. Easy sell, too. They wanted it.

Back then telecom was saying, “So those guys get a fat coax to the house because you said so, and we aren’t allowed to upgrade our small gauge copper pairs because we are “regulated” as to what we can offer at specific prices?”

It fell on deaf ears because the public didn’t like big bad Bell and liked the newcomer. Now two decades later those idiots got exactly what they wanted and are whining about it.

It’s like most professions. The public is the last group of people you want engineering a network, but the first you turn to if you can make up some scary sounding crap they’ll believe that will give your company a competitive advantage by law.

Give the cable companies a last mile monopoly and then whine that they behave badly. Duh.

The public couldn’t alllow telecom to abandon their low bandwidth copper. “OMG! Grandma’s LifeAlert won’t work anymore! 911 will be broken! Blah blah blah...” Maintaining POTS had as much impact on where we ended up today as far as competition goes.

Who has a freaking POTS line anymore? The networks routed around that government induced stupidity. But it killed fiber to the curb.

Municipalities gladly handed their constituents’ wallets to anyone with coax delivery back then. And told telecom we had to keep delivering copper Frame Relay long after it was a money loser. And the idiot constituents who’ve never built a network in their lives, cheered their government saviors from “bad old Bell”.

If you really want proof that popular bits won’t be blocked and neutrality is a fight for the fringes... see if anyone ever attempts to block Disney. Not the piddly asses at Netflix who couldn’t afford their own business model without doing an IPO. They got real lucky with their timing not to be bankrupt during their conversion from rental DVD peddlers to streaming provider. Real lucky.

 

[paflyer]

And basically government, VA, international, would all be much smaller without "military"

Where's the rest of the budget, Jimmy?

 

[paflyer]

LOL. I think y’all should pay via taxes to lay fiber to my rural house!!! (Kidding of course, but it’s the same argument as “neutrality”. “It’s not faaaaaair!” Haha! I do secretly hate my coworker who can get 2Gb/s at home if he wants though.)

Careful, or we'll get the TVA of BIAS.

I paid well over $100/Mo to “enjoy” 128Kb/s over ISDN to my residence years before anybody even used the term “work from home”.

HA! It Still Does Nothing.

 

[wsuffa]

Do you trust a government that says "give us the power to be overlord and we promise not to abuse it?"

I don't see a need for the government to regulate something that can be regulated adequately by market forces. Streaming Netfix isn't exactly a life and death thing. We're not talking about regulating pharmaceuticals.
.

Big government is no better than big corporate. Just different. Either way, the little guy loses.

As for the second statement, I agree - but I disagree that the Internet "pipe" industry is a market competitive enough to be adequately regulated by market forces. There is more competition in cellular phones, the airline industry and generic pharma than there is in high speed internet in most places. Some of that may change with 5G, but it n most places there are only one or two competitors in the HSI market (we have 2 here, but 5 years ago we really only had one, and I'm in a suburb of DC). One or two compeitors are insufficient to be truly competitive or market-regulated. In fact, the cable provider (asymmetrical service) is virtually the same price as the phone company's symmetrical fiber offering.

As a small business, the rates have gone up at least 10% a year for the last 3 years. That is not a functioning competitive market.

 

[John221us]

There was a comment above about getting by without Internet for 40 years. The truth is, times have changed. Many schools have students get their assignments and turn in homework on the Internet and many jobs require it (mine does). People got by without telephones and electricity at one time, too. Internet access is and should be treated as a utility. This isn’t about not getting to watch videos or play online games, despite the cute sound bites people come up with.