- Last Active
ericesque said:lightvox88 said:Exactly. It was already more than cable before, and now it's just ridiculous. 30% increase!?! Who would be interested in this? People with money to burn...It can depend heavily on what’s available in your area. The ONLY cable option to our home is Comcast.The cheapest package I can seem to get from Comcast is $80 once you add in hidden fees for HD content and local sports broadcast fees. This is literally double their advertised price.
YT TV isn’t what any of us hoped Internet TV would be, but it’s still 20% cheaper than Comcast for a significantly better lineup and features that would raise the price of a Comcast package even higher.
davgreg said:Mr. Pai came to the FCC from Verizon and has been on a mission to give the telecom/ISP lobby their wish list starting with net neutrality. He is not your friend regardless of your political viewpoint.
Simply stated, net neutrality is equal access for both those who provide content- like Apple Insider - and consumers who view it. By the way, both the providers and consumers already pay ISPs for internet access.
A free and open internet needs for there to be equal access to the whole internet both to serve for a fair commercial market and for an open exchange of ideas among the public. The huge companies we all know like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix and such were able to become what they are in part because of an online environment where your content and service was the determining factor in your success- not a rigged internet where their sites were not hobbled by a second or third tier online connection.
There is also a reasonable concern about a fair an open internet that allows for the free exchange of ideas. Despite the flame wars that get outsized attention, most online commenters are reasonable and not offensive.
Landline ISPs are a natural monopoly due to the expense and complexity of the build out and upkeep of the connections. Very few people have a choice regarding broadband landline internet connections. Wireless is not really a competition due to the low data caps imposed upon wireless networks and the common problems with congestion. As such, there is a compelling need fro some level of government oversight to make sure ISPs to not abuse their market position.
Landlines aren't a natural monopoly...they are only a monopoly because the local governments grant them.
Free market competition works everywhere except where government touches it.
"Free exchange of ideas" ? How does that work in a regulated environment? Do you really want someone from an unelected government bureaucracy determining what is ok and what's not?
I'm 100% on board with regulation or even socialism as long as I get to be the person in charge.
Unelected clueless bureaucrats here to save the people. But guess who doesn't have to participate in this...#brexit! I wonder who's next to pull out of this clusterF organization.