FCC is about to repeal Net Neutrality

[JAJT]

The most important question: These corporations you despise and rail against for being corrupt and having too much power... I wonder - How do monopolies exist without help from the very thing you see as an alternative?

Out of curiosity - does this mean you are in favor of the elimination of net neutrality?

If so... what good do you see coming from it?

I want more competition, not less, and I see a lack of neutrality to be a blow against competition and technological advancement in many different ways. It shifts the landscape from one of "anyone with an idea can knock anyone else off the pedestal" to one of "anyone with enough money to make a deal with the leader, provided it's in their best interests, can compete with permission".

Check out this brief history of neutrality infringements I just read about when reading up a bit more on the arguments:

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

I'm all for corporations, and corporations being allowed to run their own operations, and small government in general, but shit like this should give most people who use the internet pause.

If the landscape for internet service providers was truly competitive, then these kinds of infractions would be "ruinous" to their businesses. The only way they can get away with them is through pure lack of competition. If it was as easy as saying "I disagree, I'm taking my business elsewhere" there would be no issue. The problem is there is no "other bank across the street" to take your money to.

The choice between "let us F*ck you" and "go F*ck yourself" isn't much of a choice at all, IMHO.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Just a general statement here, but anyone who thinks putting unelected bureaucrats in charge of something needs to have their head examined. What could go wrong?

 

[ArcherCarmic]

I'm actually amazed by some of the opinions here on Net Neutrality.
I'm usually impressed by the quality of debate but this is ridiculous.

Net Neutrality ensures an even playing field for all traffic on the internet.
Anyone buying into the "Don't let the government tell us what to do! Keep out of our net" arguments are spreading FUD.
The events you are describing are EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN from the monopolies currently dominating the space.

I get it, some people just need to hate on the government for everything. You are in luck! There's an issue within gov that is at the center of this! It's called Regulatory Capture (Regulatory capture - Wikipedia) - "a government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss to society as a whole"

After net neutrality, there is nothing stopping Comcast (for example) from copying the next big tech startups idea, and launching their own version of it at "increased speed", while slowing speeds to the other or even blocking it outright. Sound crazy? They did it to Netflix in 2014.
There is nothing stopping them from blocking traffic to certain sites or services as they see fit. Torrent Traffic? Haha say goodbye to that technology. Tor traffic and/or VPN? Not a chance. Anyone here a fan of Netflix? I wonder what the next great video startup would be? It will never happen again because it would be crushed before they got a chance.
All of those new groundbreaking technologies like crypto? If Verizon decided they wanted to launch their own VCOIN currency and exchange, they could block every single other exchange for their users and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it.

Seriously people wake up.

 

[Thriftypreneur]

Didn't see anything posted on this, so I thought I would help spread the word. If you don't know what this means, it essentially means that your ISP could decide to charge you $10 per minute for accessing thefastlaneforum.com because reasons. Or, they could decide to blacklist it all together, preventing you from even being able to access it. The point being that the internet would no longer be a "free" space. This matters to any and every person who uses the internet, so, please, help spread the word as the vote is on Dec 14.

Comcast wants to control what you do online. Do you want to let them?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[JAJT]

Back in 2010, for example, did you use to complain about the internet not being neutral enough? Serious question.

Well there was that time where Comcast held it's user's access to Netflix for ransom unless Netflix paid Comcast for all the traffic the service was using.

Best explanation I could find: The inside story of how Netflix came to pay Comcast for internet traffic

Relevant quotes:

In essence, Comcast sought to meter Netflix traffic requested by Comcast’s broadband subscribers.

Comcast subscribers went from viewing Netflix content at 720p on average HD quality) to viewing content at nearly VHS quality. For many subscribers, the bitrate was so poor that Netflix’s streaming video service became unusable.

Despite purchasing transit on all available routes into Comcast’s network that did not require direct or indirect payment of an access fee to Comcast, the viewing quality of Netflix’s service reached near-VHS quality levels.

Faced with such severe degradation of its streaming video service, Netflix began to negotiate for paid access to connect with Comcast. Netflix and Comcast eventually reached a paid agreement.

The letter concludes that Comcast, through its “interconnection relations,” had “deployed an ecosystem in which hosting companies such as Voxel are effectively forced to pay Comcast to serve its broadband subscribers.” In that ecosystem, “it is simply not possible for competing external providers to deliver gaming, or streaming video services to Comcast’s broadband subscribers” without directly or indirectly paying Comcast.

Comcast was the first large terminating access network to successfully implement a “congest transit pipes” peering strategy to extract direct payment from Netflix, but it is not the only one to do so. Since agreeing to pay Comcast, Netflix also has agreed to pay TWC, AT&T and Verlzon for interconnection. [Redacted section.] Netflix is not the only edge provider to encounter Comcast’s peering strategy. In a 2011 filing with the Commission, Voxel, a hosting company relying on Tata for interconnection with Comcast’s network, noted that “[w]here broadband ISPS typically ensure that links connecting their customers to outside networks are relatively free from congestion, Comcast appears to be taking the opposite approach: maintaining highly-congested links between its network and external ISP.” The letter concludes that Comcast, through its “interconnection relations,” had “deployed an ecosystem in which hosting companies such as Voxel are effectively forced to pay Comcast to serve its broadband subscribers.” In that ecosystem, “it is simply not possible for competing external providers to deliver gaming, or streaming video services to Comcast’s broadband subscribers” without directly or indirectly paying Comcast.

This is the kind of situation that Net Neutrality set out to fix.

Again, to be clear, I'm all for small government and allowing the market to self-correct in situations where self-correcting is possible. But when no "free market" exists to allow competition to self-correct the problem, what is to be done?

For the longest time (and likely even today), Google themselves had issues competing with these folks. Competitors were legally roadblocking access to lay new infrastructure or access the existing one in efforts to prevent competition in the areas Google sought to compete in. A quick search shows that in Kansas, Google was willing to pay up to $1 Billion to implement infrastructure but was being kept out by the utility companies who sought to prevent competition in the area.

So this all begs the question - what's the free market solution where free market competition not only doesn't truly exist but is actively prevented by the existing players?

I'm not trying to be a hippy about this topic or anything, I just don't see the viable free market alternative in situations where massive monopolies / oligopolies control essential services and use their power and influence to artificially hold market positions and screw with their customers?

 

[JAJT]

Here's a 3 minute video on what NN is and how things can change if repealed:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw


The biggest problem is that it discourages competition by allowing a select few to punish the entrepreneurial efforts of their competition as they see fit.

You come out with a fantastic new product/service that disrupts or competes with an established player's products or services? Well don't be surprised if your traffic gets the least priority on the network as a result.

The big players have tried stuff like this in the past and the only thing that's stopped them is the rules and regulations that make net neutrality possible. Example: When Skype and VOIP started getting big, some of the big players tried crippling access to the service for their users because it took money away from their long distance and phone services. And they tried this when it was illegal to do so, from my understanding.

In a world where 1-2-3 seconds extra loading time on your website or service is the difference between mass adoption and the "back" button being hit, this stuff matters a lot to the entrepreneurial world. It legally allows the big players to hinder your ability to compete with them.

 

[million$$$smile]

Bottom line:

It's just another form of CONTROL...

 

[JAJT]

I'd rather fight a corp than the entity that enforces the law.

What do you do when corporations are the ones having the laws changed to their benefit through back-room deals and lobbying?

When the government won't listen because they've been purchased, corporations won't listen because they were the ones doing the purchasing, and competition is impossible because both government and corporations have made it that way... Who do you take the fight to?

 

[Denim Chicken]

Net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for the oligopoly with the cable providers. If it was a TRUE free market, the point of neutrality wouldn't be a big discussion.

Let's not forget, for cable companies the advent of the internet and free flow of information AND easy content production destroyed their business.
No one is buying cable anymore and their subscriptions are falling by the wayside. It also means that their distribution and deals with networks are effectively shit. They cannot compete in a true free market environment as you can see.

If we had 300 ISPs that provided with true competition in a free market, it would provide a layer of protection for this type of nonsense but because it's only held by a handful (4) providers, repealing NN effectively creates an artificial curve that only ends up making information and content more expensive for everyone involved.

Let's imagine this scenario. Right now Youtube is free and because it's free, content production is also abundant. The demand will allow for the supply. I am subscribed to things like car channels, tutorials, entrepreneurial podcasts, etc. and because a person has only 24 hours in a day, the content you can consume is limited.
It is taking away from cable and things like A&E, TruTV and all this cable garbage that are packaged within cable networks.

If ISPs had it their way, they might say, charge extra for Youtube. Which will effectively raise prices for Youtube/Google. It will essentially bring back the old network TV model but thru the internet. Companies see that the distribution gatekeepers are ISPs so maybe Google or Hulu or Netflix ends up paying for a multi-year network deal. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?)

THEY WANT TO CONTROL DISTRIBUTION, flat and simple. Instead of information thru TV sets, it is now your computer monitor. Same shit. And thi isn't some conspiracy theory about "they". Cable companies are hurting economically.


You can see the implications of this:
1) Big companies like Google, Hulu, etc. will become the next Fox News, TBS, History Channel because they work out network deals and can afford to pay the ISPs.

2) Free and available content production is no longer viable. One scenario might be you would have to pay a premium subscription to be a youtube content producer and also as a consumer.

Ex: You pay $5/mo for Youtube to TimeWarner and without it you don't get youtube. To be a content producer, you want to be on Youtube because that's where all the traffic is at but they charge you fees and commissions now to cover their expenses.

Now all of the sudden, abundant content and information power is taken away from the people.

The fast travel of information is what allows for progress and innovation and always has been the case.



Prediction:

If NN repeal passes, the cable companies are not stupid. They will do everything to persuade you that it's awesome. You can see it RIGHT NOW.

Tmobile used to have unlimited plans and it used to be you can use whatever bandwidth, for whatever data, at a fast speed.

But then... slowly you started seeing they were converting users to things like Unlimited HD access or Unlimited media package which allows you to have "unlimited" bandwidth for netflix, hulu, spotify, pandora, etc.

Now, Tmobile is giving you free access to Netflix for their plans. People love this shit.
It's a short term benefit to them that masquerades as a discount or a freebie while hiding the fact that their choices and freedom are being funneled off.

ISPs might offer some special about Free Netflix for a year, or your new cable package includes "unlimited bandwidth" for netflix, youtube, and hulu with some bullshit about "premium speeds". They will offer things for free or discounted, or packages and people will think "maybe this isn't so bad".

Then you can either fast forward a few years (or simply look back before the internet came out and see how TV deals were structured and the distribution controlled by network television) and realize, it's really just F*cking you.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[funkj25]

I think we all pretty much agree that if there was a real free market we wouldn't need these regulations.

I found an interesting article on the topic, that talks about how other countries have successfully broken up these monopolies by basically requiring existing companies to provide access to what they call the "last mile" of wires, which is apparently the most expensive to install for new entering competitors.

It gives an example of how this was done in the UK.

More here: We don’t need net neutrality; we need competition

So it looks like there are examples we can look to, to try to deal with the source of the problem.

Yes, more competition would eliminate the issue because consumers would be able to vote with their dollars. However, if you're trying to resolve the problem with government breaking up what are essentially mini-monopolies how is that going to be accomplished when that same government is unable to continue to prevent net neutrality from being repealed?

I'm not a lawyer and have no government experience, but to a laymen it appears that maintaining net neutrality would be easier than breaking up company's monopolizing and potentially colluding in markets.

As it stands customers are unable to vote with their dollars when they often only have 1 or 2 choices. I'm in KC, Google Fiber started here. I still only had 2 choices when moving into my apartment and Google wasn't one of them. Becoming an ISP has incredible barriers to entry not to mention the legal tie up that the current ISPs will bring with frivolous lawsuits to try and drain potential new ISP's cash reserves.

It isn't a free market. It shouldn't be treated like one.

The thought that anyone on these boards is for the repeal blows my mind. The internet as an equal playing field against large companies is what gives it such fastlane qualities for small-time operations. Repealing NN negates that situation and entrenches large players with deep pockets.

I had to walk away from this thread from frustration for a little while. As c4n said, net neutrality is about no one controlling the internet. Not government controlling vs corporations controlling. The gist is "data is data" it should all be treated the same.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lowtek]

We haven't had "net neutrality" the entire time the internet has been in existence. So... why the sudden drive for it now?

Net Neutrality is like every other government program. A power grab designed to solve a problem that exists only because of other government programs and regulations.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Denim Chicken]

I am a bit surprised by many replies here. One would expect a community of entrepreneurs would be at the forefront of fight for net neutrality.

Are you guys sure you understand what net neutrality means? Quote from Wiki (emphasis mine):




How can they control opinions they don't like on the internet? With net neutrality they can't. Without it, any ISP can block (or throttle) traffic to any website as they see fit.


I'm fed up with all the regulations, SJW, political correctness, etc. being imposed on us daily, but truly believe net neutrality is one of those rare things that should be a right, not a choice.

The opposing argument I've seen claims that we've been F*cked by Obama and that this is actually a government overstepping their bounds. I def dont agree with this sentiment and I feel like it's team mentality that rules over logic in this case.

The rules of monopolies seem to not apply to these large companies. So sure in an ideal world, let competition rampant and we'll see the companies that F*ck over consumers get railroaded and go out of business. But in the case of Comcast and At&t and ISPs, they run and control the internet service.

They control accessibility to the internet, the speeds we get and who can offer consumers an alternative.

Now with the repeal of NN, they completely control which information gets delivered to who by charging more for it.

The way I see it, it's a complete threat to humankind as the internet has been the #1 important and empowering factor for people, following the movable type so people can read and write without having the church to "translate" literature.

As it relates to entrepreneurs, it can effectively kill new business opportunities or at least make it significantly more expensive since information and content will be more expensive. This really benefits no one other than the cable companies and people who want control over information

 

[Xavier X]

I worked in telecom for over 7 years. I don't see a single positive of repealing net neutrality, from the end-user stand point.

The ISPs on the other hand,.. oh boy!

 

[MJ DeMarco]

"net neutrality"?

You mean, like "the affordable care act?"

 

[TKDTyler]

I don't know man. Maybe we're taking net neutrality and the internet for granted. Essentially it's gonna have the people using the largest amount of bandwidth paying more for use of services that provide that bandwidth like internet cables. I doubt TFLF is gonna suffer much impact and unless your entrepreneurship is totally based on streaming or illegal torrenting, it wouldn't affect you as much either. Plus, with the profits, companies can provide better services by putting more resources to bandwidth issues. I'm all for net neutrality, it's a beautiful idea but I'm also all for exchanging value!

I disagree. There will be a large impact on everybody.

Because the ISP's control traffic, they can give favor to whoever they see fit (i.e. large corps who can afford to pay the fees).

When the fees come into place and traffic is split, smaller startups that don't have the capital will be unable to gain access due to a larger barrier to entry. This means less competition and more monopolies in the marketplace.

What does that mean? Price control is left to the big players, and without new competition, the end consumer suffers.

It'll start small, but will move towards it over time. That's just one problem among many others.

 

[c4n]

From what I’ve read on it it basically comes down to the government controlling the internet or businesses controlling the internet. Based on some of the whack jobs who continue to get elected (from both political parties) I feel much better about corporations running things than I do the government. All it takes is a quick glance at China to see what happens when the government controls the internet.

Actually, net neutrality is about no one controlling the internet. Net neutrality states than every internet traffic on a public communication network is dealt with equally, independent of content, applications, services, devices, source and destination of the communication.

Governments around the world (like China) do control the internet, but that is the opposite of net neutrality and has nothing to do with it.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Xeon]

It's crazy how such an important issue like NN, and the fate of the internet, can be decided by a panel of 5 unknowns whom the average man (or even most of us here) never even knew existed. The effects of NN could and will trickle down to all countries in the world and will affect even non-US citizens.

Ajit Pai? Who the F is this guy and how did he get so much power?

 

[Denim Chicken]

And doing it over Thanksgiving in hopes that it will pass without much trouble due to the distractions

 

[PedroG]

Care to elaborate? What ISP has been giving data packets from certain websites priority over data packets from other internet traffic?

I think he means we didn't have the net neutrality law until 2 years ago, which is kind of the point I was making earlier. I still see it as an excuse for the government to start regulating the internet.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GuestUser450]

What do you do when corporations are the ones having the laws changed to their benefit through back-room deals and lobbying? When the government won't listen because they've been purchased, corporations won't listen because they were the ones doing the purchasing, and competition is impossible because both government and corporations have made it that way... Who do you take the fight to?

Exactly. This is my point, just from a different angle. When things are crooked, we fight it, when things are law we accept it. Monopolies can't exist without regulation in their favor. There's never been neutrality. It's been a self-regulating wild west and it's worked well. The argument that legislation can somehow preserve this is misguided. Forget fairness, promote competition. Fighting for smaller ISPs with our wallets is a lot easier than living with an omnipotent white knight with good intentions.

 

[Willing2Learn]

Sounds like controlling to me.

Yes it does. And these companies will reap the rewards from it.

 

[c4n]

I am a bit surprised by many replies here. One would expect a community of entrepreneurs would be at the forefront of fight for net neutrality.

Are you guys sure you understand what net neutrality means? Quote from Wiki (emphasis mine):

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating most of the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

View attachment 16939

How can they control opinions they don't like on the internet? With net neutrality they can't. Without it, any ISP can block (or throttle) traffic to any website as they see fit.


I'm fed up with all the regulations, SJW, political correctness, etc. being imposed on us daily, but truly believe net neutrality is one of those rare things that should be a right, not a choice.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Denim Chicken]

Question for those who like "Net Neutrality." Back in 2010, for example, did you use to complain about the internet not being neutral enough? Serious question.

That's an absurd question with a logical flaw.

That's like asking.. "Did you ever complain about not having 4k before in 2007 when it was all 1080p?"

NN was passed for a reason and just because it was worse before or it didn't exist doesn't mean it isn't useful.

And since NN was passed and heavily pushed for, it seems like it was an issue that needed addressing otherwise it wouldn't have even been brought up.

 

[Ecom man]

Actually, net neutrality is about no one controlling the internet. Net neutrality states than every internet traffic on a public communication network is dealt with equally, independent of content, applications, services, devices, source and destination of the communication.

Governments around the world (like China) do control the internet, but that is the opposite of net neutrality and has nothing to do with it.

Except the problem is that is not how the law it currently written. Under current laws the government classified the internet as a utility so the government can control and regulate just about every facet of the internet.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kid]

It came to my mind that repealing Net Neutrality is like stating that some highway would be allowed only to big three (GM/Ford/Chrysler) and not to Tesla or companies alike.

 

[c4n]

Related: If Your Business Runs on the Internet, Read This.

 

[Isaac Oh]

I don't know man. Maybe we're taking net neutrality and the internet for granted. Essentially it's gonna have the people using the largest amount of bandwidth paying more for use of services that provide that bandwidth like internet cables. I doubt TFLF is gonna suffer much impact and unless your entrepreneurship is totally based on streaming or illegal torrenting, it wouldn't affect you as much either. Plus, with the profits, companies can provide better services by putting more resources to bandwidth issues. I'm all for net neutrality, it's a beautiful idea but I'm also all for exchanging value!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[TonyStark]

Indirectly, yes. It’s basically requiring you’re audience to wear earmuffs, and pay to take them off. Pretty much shits on any hope I had of getting my business off the ground.

I have faith that the US government will do the right thing.

And if not, give rise to VPN’s and dark net services lol

 

[GuestUser450]

I don't think I'm a nut, shill or fringe ideologue, but folks - here are a few simple questions to ask yourself and think deeply about:

Corporation Vs Government
Who has better customer service?
Who's easier to complain to?
What's easier to fight, company policy or law?
What's worse - higher prices or garbage product?
Which one exists because of a customer, which one is the customer?
What historically has a better track record - good intentions of fairness or an actual fair exchange of market-determined value?

The most important question: These corporations you despise and rail against for being corrupt and having too much power... I wonder - How do monopolies exist without help from the very thing you see as an alternative?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Mr.Chaos]

I think a lot of this had to do with the death of cable tv. *cough* comcast, ATT, etc. Netlifx and other streaming services are killing them. I could see google fiber using its stance on complete neutrality to win over a large percentage of other ISP's customer bases.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.