|
Pauline Kael posted:Why do you think that ISPs arent going to gently caress consumers now? They are still going to gently caress consumers. They are just going to have to be a little more creative about it. But that means less profit. Which is the only reason ISPs are against net neutrality because it certainly has gently caress-all to do with anything they claim it does. An under-regulated industry is going to see more regulation. Of course they are mad.
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Telco isn't exactly a sane person's definition of under-regulated, you realize that, right? Good thing most broadband in the US is cable.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Mostly what I'm seeing here is the usual conservative garbage. -gently caress Obama. Check. -gently caress the Government. Check. -Corporate profits before all else. Check. Kalman posted:The telcos are against falling under title II and under regulatory requirements of net neutrality because regulatory compliance requires oversight and that does cost money. I'm not saying all regulation is bad, or even that net neutrality is bad, but that the telcos can be against being regulated without being against the specifics of the regulation itself, and can see a loss of profit in being regulated where they don't see a loss of profit in implementing the practices in the first place. Had the FCC gone the 706 route that the DC Circuit told them they should use, you wouldn't have seen any of the parade of horrible so put forward by neutrality advocates or antagonists, and you also wouldn't have seen legal challenges to it. Am I supposed to feel sorry for these companies that didn't do a better job communicating why they thought this shouldn't happen, and instead pandered to anti-government sentiment? And until something is done about local monopolies I will have to disagree on what constitutes under-regulated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 22:02
|
|