I don't know anyone who has more than one or two land-line options.
I think the reason for that is businesses invested in infrastructure, and they expected to earn some profits for that. That was necessary to get the internet to where it is today.
Going forward, the question is how to continue increasing quality.
Buying out ISP's doesn't seem like the right solution to me. That's a worst-case scenario for the American public, when something needs to become totally government-owned, like banks or mortgage backers.
I think killing net neutrality would build more silos, enabling people to further insulate themselves from each other, which leads to more miscommunication, and would be detrimental.
We don't need to do that. We can make this issue known, and even if it passes, monitor its effects afterwards.
Sorry I just don't think there's an overnight solution for increasing ISP competition, unless you're willing to switch to mobile.
If you feel Comcast is somehow breaking their contracts, take them to court. That's how we address bad businesses.
Perhaps there's some argument for breaking some up -- I don't know. That doesn't seem to be on the table at the moment and I think it's better to stay focused on net neutrality for now.
Also, leaving regular people to take massive corporations is not really a solution. Most people don't have the time or money to go to court with anyone, let alone a team of corporate lawyers. ISPs know this, so we all just deal with their mistreatment because there is no other option around.
I agree with that, I just don't think it's a problem that a market or politics are going to solve, and breaking up monopolies with regulation certainly isn't on the table in this administration.
> Also, leaving regular people to take [on] massive corporations is not really a solution
It is in the sense of voting. Your vote is more powerful than corporate spending.
I agree going to court isn't an ideal backup option. It is nice that we have such a system that allows it, and a supply of pro-bono lawyers who will take class-action cases.
No it is not. Mobile is either Verizon or AT&T. All the other mobile companies use infrastructure from one of those two monopolies, and follow the same business model.
I haven't ever seen a mobile company that does not have some sort of data cap.
Are these plans really nonexistent nowadays?
Edit: I guess I'm a bit surprised you have cable lines running into your place but not phone lines.
Cable companies tend to act the same way, but much less consistently.
Or alternatively, public (and by public I don't necessarily mean state) owned infrastructure, in which the public can vote directly for what they wish to be improved about it. The argument against the quality of infrastructure isn't very strong when it's the public that decides how the infrastructure is operated and which parts are improved. As for competition, I can't see why that's necessarily a good thing. It's a waste of finite resources.
No thanks, too many cooks in the kitchen. We're a democratic republic specifically to avoid that.
As inept as we view our Congress to be, we're still a highly developed, functioning country.
To avoid what?
Eh, I don't think that's so bad. We needed some privatization to foster competition and raise quality.
What we don't need to grant is increased monopolies.
There is a balance to strike. Removing net neutrality policies would shift it too far away from increasing competition and quality, and buying back ISPs would be both expensive and also reduce competition and then quality.