On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:47:29 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Doomsdrzej" wrote

| Higher prices? Bull****. Competition also includes offering a better
| service for LESS and undercut everyone else.
|

What competition? I have a service I like. My
other option is Verizon, which I'd like to avoid.
I'm lucky. Many people have only one option for
highspeed Internet. Some have none. My brother
in NH only recently got DSL. Up until now his only
option was dish, which failed on cloudy days.

Even with competition, this is a classic case
of dual or triple monopoly. If you have a CVS and
a Walgreens in your town you could say there's
competition, but they're both national chains,
carrying pretty much the same stuff for pretty
much the same prices. There's a difference
between competition and collusion. The latter
is what we have. It may or may not be deliberate,
illegal price fixing, but the result is the same.

The point of Net neutrality is not to give control
to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that
the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service.
That the people renting you the wire should only
be renting the wire and not controlling the content.
If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see
online that's a separate issue.

I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.