0
6

[–] LazarusLong 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

They also need to repeal all the anti-competition laws which prevent smaller ISPs or local providers from gaining ground.

0
1

[–] mineMineMINE 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Some of the biggest hurdles have actually recently been removed.

https://voat.co/v/news/2245558

0
6

[–] glassuser 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

The problem isn't about regulating what the ISPs do. It's about regulating what the ISPs do with taxpayer-funded infrastructure.

0
3

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

+1: Insightful!

0
5

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

US internet is a mess. The largest thing we could do to fix it is destroy the local boards that control where providers can operate. Most people only have one or two providers and that almost always comes down to either economics (rural areas) or these boards (urban/suburban areas). There is no valid reason for my city to have 4 providers available but in no place are all 4 available. Most people have 1 or 2. In many cases you realistically only have one available if you need any real internet speed. For example, I get 500Mb from my current provider but have 2 more available. Those two offer 60Mb and 12Mb as their max (same price but with data caps). Realistically that leaves me with only one decent provider. Thank god they are available though as they are not one of the huge ones (WOW is the fast provider, Mediacom and AT&T the others, Charter is in a few places here but not my house).

0
3

[–] PeBeFri 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I still think municipal broadband is a good idea...

0
2

[–] peacegnome 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It is, because there is no competition and much of the infrastructure was paid for by the people. I'd guess that most of what an ISP has to spend of infrastructure is paid off in the first six months of having a customer, and then it is just pure (well, close to pure, since electricity, maintenance, and bulk bandwidth do have non-zero costs) profit from then on.

If you stopped government subsidies of isps, and made it easier for people who wanted to sell service to do so, then we would see a similar thing happen; imho.

1
2

[–] derram 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

The websites are actively doing far worse to prevent a neutral internet than what the ISPs are accused of only considering.

0
0

[–] AverageAmerica [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You don't have to use a website to connect to the internet.

0
0

[–] derram 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm sure the people who run the risk of losing the entirety of their online presence for espousing wrongthink would disagree with you.

0
1

[–] Kal 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

ISP's own the internet in their minds. Their internal memos would make your blood boil.

0
1

[–] LionElTrump 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Look out how much misinformation is out there, there are people paying to ensure Pai's is considered the liar and Obama's FCC 2015 rules stay inplace. This is an attack on their infrastructure they've been working on since the Patriot-Act. It's about the illusion of choices and a consolidation of who gets to view your 'metadata'(GPS, Private messages, emails, DMs, passwords, shopping lists, browsing lists, cookies, history, friends)

3
0

[–] beren 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

you need to read your history man. ppl think that "without government" big corps will take over and screw the little guy. Standard Oil had like 90% of the oil refining market. Then the government decided to "do something" to protect the little guy, right? Wrong. In the years of court battle the US Government had trying to punish Standard Oil, the oil refining market share of Standard Oil fell from 90% to something like 60% before a judgement was even handed down by the court. Not only does the free market solve these problems better than the government ever could, it does it much faster.