Net Neutrality pt.2

[Lissa]

Then my first post stands. You really don't understand what Net Neutrallity is all about. There is nothing that can be said to change you mind. You are too set in your ways even given the information that has been shown to you here (repeal of Net Neutraliy allows a monopoly Corporation to tread on your rights to get access you need to be able to make an informed decision on the governmental process of the Federal Government by simply not allowing access to information, this is the crux of Net Neutrality).

I was looking for informative discussion. I wasn't able to prod in time before this comment. I think it would have come around.

I would like to retract that statement.

Natural monopolies are a myth and if they are not, why do people fear them? All monopolies exist due to government interference in the "free market". The article I originally posted shows how monopolies are created not destroyed by Net Neutrality.
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

You completely ignored what I said earlier. The ISPs *ARE* monopolies because they collude to not compete. The government is not sitting there telling them to not compete, they actively choosing to not compete against each other. As I stated earlier, only in a couple of tech hub cities do you see competition between ISPs, outside those areas, you really only have one choice for an ISP because the other ISPs have worked out a deal to not go into another ISPs area so long as there is reciprocity. The ISPs lobby the politicians to turn a blind eye to what they're doing (lobbying needs to end, the amount of corruption caused by it is insane).

If we apply the Net Neutrality logic cable TV services should be required to show all channels at the same price to every region. Is cable not a "Public Utility"? Do you apply some principle to come to this conclusion or make decisions based on how you feel(i.e. there seems to be enough people and industry dependent now to declare Title 2 status)? How do you come to this conclusion? Is there a metric we can apply to come to this conclusion?

Here's the difference with what you're saying. There are broadcast stations that offer service for *FREE* requiring the consumer to simply watch commercials during the shows to pay for said shows. So, effectively Broadcast TV *IS* a public utility.

If you pay attention to the various pay TV providers, you'll see that they all charge you the same price. The only difference between Cox, ComCast, and Verizon in my area, with respect to TV, is the set top boxes and what those set top boxes can do. The price for all of them is $39.99 per month for just TV and the channels offered in the basic package is the same.

So you're dealing with deflection because TV services is not the same as internet access (although they can be sent over the same cable). And before you say, but cell can be broadband, no, it cannot. Anyone that says this doesn't understand what the difference is between a broadband connection and a cell connection (speed, metering, accessibiliity, signal strength, etc).

I think Net Neutrality will unfold the same as the DACA issue. I believe Trump actually likes Net Neutrality and wants to make it permanent, but without him getting the blame. This appears to be what he is doing with DACA:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ev...ncna830246

If Trump really cared about Net Neutrality, he would have told Pai to leave the decision alone. Quit fooling yourself. Trump cares about one thing and one thing only, himself. Everything he's done so far has to fatten his own coffers (just take a look at the tax bill).