No.59753
What can be done to stop ISPs regional monopolies without resorting to government interference. Also a Net Neutrality thread.
No.59756
Competition.
If companies want to act stupid and slow down certain sites for money, then they are free to do so. As I will change providers quick as hell, nobody likes slow internet. It's literally business suicide.
No.59757
>TFW having to argue that just because you don't want yet another government powergrab doesn't mean you want every company to dictate what people can and cannot see
Honestly, I'm starting to hate the pro-NN people more than the anti-NN people.
No.59758
>>59753
Government interference led to their growth. Shit's complicated now because it will take a lot more until they naturally fail. Sooner or later the Government will nationalize most of, if not all the ISP lines. This was probably planned a long time ago. Then no petitioning will save you.
No.59759
>>59757
>Honestly, I'm starting to hate the pro-NN people more than the anti-NN people.
>starting
Do you feel less entitled now than before?
No.59760
>>59756
How many relevant cases of this happening do we have? Sounds like a lot of panic through propaganda. Everyone talks what "cold" happen but nobody's giving examples of it happening.
No.59761
>>59760
What?
You want examples of people switching their internet provider to a better one?
I wouldn't even know where to get that data.
No.59762
>>59761
I mean of throttling and sites being banned by the ISP.
Governments asking ISPs for shady unconstitutional and illegal services does not count, by the way.
No.59767
No.59784
Since it started out as a regional monopoly maybe we can fight it at the regional level and get the states to stop giving money or whatever to the companies?
No.59788
>>59753
What can be done is to stop the government interference creating the regional monopolies in the first place. Governments monopolize access to land for the building of communication infrastructure, and grant that access selectively thanks to the political connection and lobbying of major telecom companies and ISPs. If private property owners are the ones negotiating with infrastructure developers, you can expect much more negotiation and many more providers.
I seem to recall that Somlia (I know, right!?) has (or at least had) some of the best mobile coverage and internet access in the region at the lowest price, thanks to a lack of government involvement in the sector.
No.59789
>>59757
Originally I felt the same way about NN that I feel about border security; there are correct build orders to freedom. If you prioritize one form of freedom (open borders) above another more important one (property rights/freedom of association), it will just enable the wrong behaviors and break everything.
When the issue of NN first came up, I thought that worrying so much about government interference when it prevents corporate abuse, but not worrying at all about state-enforced monopolies on services, seemed a bit funny to me. I figured it would enable anti-consumer practices but would never suffer for it because they have no competition. Now I'm not so sure it's necessary at all.
No.59790
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that most major ISPs are…in favor of net neutrality?
Like, that doesn't strike you as incredibly fucking suspicious?
No.59798
>>59790
Honestly, I'm more off-put that people on censorship-heavy sites are overwhelmingly in support of it, while support is split on sites that actually promote free speech.
Example, Reddit officially supporting it, Voat, as an entity, being neutral about it, and the community being split on it. If anything, they're pro-free market solutions.
No.59808
Net neutrality is communism
No.59815
>>59790
I used to be really strict on net neutrality, but these days I dunno. Our governor illegally signed a deal with ComCast so our internet is fucked for the next decade if we don't have net neutrality, but at the same time it's really just a power grab by the government these days and I think it wouldn't be needed if not for the state colluding with ComCast/Centurylink. It's like borders and the welfare state at this point.
No.59845
>>59753
In the context of an already existing state monopoly, net neutrality is the correct decision, until we can open up competition. The free market isn't just companies doing what they like. It's companies doing what they like in a free market and facing the consequences. Right now, the way infrastructure rules work due to the government means that the ISPs are protected from competition. They are de facto government agents until they are exposed to free competition.
No.59846
>>59790
Net neutrality is the status quo. It's not something new.
No.59920
>>59815
>>59845
Wouldn't the solution in those cases to be focus on the regional monopolies and break them up by getting corrupt local governments away from the companies?
No.59934
How much of a stupid ancap do you have to be to bash on net neutrality? You retards are using the internet right now and you want it gone? Fucking morons.
No.59935
>>59934
I know you are a socialist and therefore a charlatan of the highest degree and all, but come on. You can't possibly be this stupid.
No.59937
>>59934
I have 6 different ISPs all with similar speeds I can switch to in my city of no more than 140 000 people. As for Amercans, you did this to yourself and are only making it worse. These are not "natural" monopolies. You're only helping them last longer. If only "competition" weren't considered evil. Your envy and ignorance are your undoing.
No.59983
>>59934
>you cannot complain for absence of free speach because you are using it now
No.59993
>>59983
How is net neutralist the absence of free speech?
No.61738
explain the net neutrality thing to european guy please
No.61741
>>59934
How much of a stupid american do you have to be to not realize that "Net Neutrality" is patchwork for YOU being a dumb statist?
Comcast spends millions in making sure they're the only ISP around. Then government gives us some band-aid to prevent them form abusing their power too much and now everyone forgets there is any issue other than "they might want to take the net neutrality laws away!" instead of the very important note:
"COMCAST IS STILL IN BED WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS THE ONLY ISP WE WILL HAVE IF WE DON'T STOP THEM
Why are you all dumb like this? Do you just look the other way when the government is involved? Are you afraid of changing your political stance so you pretend nothing is happening?
No.61742
No.61756
>>59788
You can create a Monopoly without getting government assistance, but I don't epect ancaps to understand that.
>>59756
Change providers to one that does the same thing.
No.61758
>>61756
You realize you could show people monopolies that exist without government assistance?
You could post one right now, you're on the internet.
No.61759
No.61760
No.61762
>>59753
>What can be done to stop ISPs regional monopolies without resorting to government interference
I'm pretty sure ISPs have regional monopolies BECAUSE of government interference, not in spite of it.
No.61766
>>61760
>predatory spending doesn't exist.
My argument is a Monopoly that came about without government intervention.
Neo-liberal propaganda.
No.61775
>>59934
>HURR DURR NET NEUTRALITY IS ONLY THING KEEPING THE INTERNET FREE
I had inklings before that this was some commie plot. I'm absolutely sure now.
No.61776
Short term gains from legislature should not replace long term gains without legislature.
No.61782
>>61766
But it wasn't. Read the damn article. Standard Oil never controlled the whole market, and much less was it ever the singular supplier of a good, which used to be the definition of a monopoly before that was watered down.
No.61817
>>61742
so it infringes on freedom of contract