Re:Americans from Both Political Parties Overwhelmingly Supp...
by scottLobster on Wednesday June 07, 2017 @03:51PM
(#14509375)
Is your satellite the only source of internet access for a given region? Are you going to actively lobby and sue to prevent municipalities and other companies from building their own competing satellites?
If the answer to both of those is no then sure, discriminate away! If people don't like your offerings they can go elsewhere, or can build their own. But the big ISPs, at least here in America, would answer "yes" to both and have long, well-documented histories to that effect.
Re:Americans from Both Political Parties Overwhelmingly Supp...
by miguelrochefort on Wednesday June 07, 2017 @04:06PM
(#14509463)
Is the goal net neutrality or is the goal to get rid of ISP monopolies?
Re:Americans from Both Political Parties Overwhelmingly Supp...
by scottLobster on Wednesday June 07, 2017 @04:31PM
(#14509636)
The goal is net neutrality. However at present the ISP monopolies are abusing their position to prevent it so that they remain free from regulation and have captive markets to exploit. Given their legally binding fiduciary duty to their shareholders and the current lack of competition, we can hardly expect different behavior from them. Either we need an infusion of competition, or we force them to "play nice" as justified by their position. At present either option requires some form of governmental regulation aka net neutrality.
Re:Americans from Both Political Parties Overwhelmingly Supp...
by lurker456 on Wednesday June 07, 2017 @04:37PM
(#14509665)
That's a bit like comparing a water utility company versus a company selling bottled water. One has a natural monopoly (and likely only exists thanks to generous government support), the other does not.
Let's imagine a different scenario. I put a satellite in orbit and offer internet access to people. No government subsidies, no monopoly. Should I be free to discriminate and only offer the websites I want?