Quote:
Originally Posted by ronasch
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I think I just pointed that out. The government is involved already and it's SHIT. Why would we want them to take anymore control?
|
It read like you were talking about other industries rather than Internet/cable infrastructure. I expounded upon it as it relates to Internet/cable infrastructure in light of your prior misapprehension regarding Net Neutrality. You keep claiming "more government control" when that is not what Net Neutrality is as a concept.
If we go down your road and add no additional government involvement, we maintain the status quo, which as you say is already "shit".
A complete deregulation of cable/Internet service will never happen, so that is out. Might it work in theory had the government never been involved? Interesting theorycraft but not applicable to reality.
Less governmental involvement/regulation would leave more control to ATT/Verizon/Comcast, which are already providing "shit" service for comparably high prices. Do you think they would all of a sudden provide better service with less involvement? Where would you go? What competition is there?
Yes, in markets where Google is laying out its own infrastructure Comcast/Cox/ATT/Verizon magically lower their prices and double/triple/quadruple the available speeds and throughput of their users. But you are dealing with another massive corporation that persists because it sells off your personal information. This is only available to a minimal market, while most of the country is still locked into choosing from bad option A and worse option B.