Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by wasoxygen

    People will put financial concerns over what they have access to.

I agree, and am in favor. People should make their own decisions about how to spend their money. Making everyone pay for a standard level of service (or else go without any service) does not seem like the way to please as many people as possible.

What's so bad about a world that includes the choice of cheap, basic internet service?

    I'll remind you of this conversation once a major ISP starts banning political speech it doesn't like.

I would like to express our disagreement in the form of a prediction, so we could give it some time and come back and see who was right. But I don't understand what your language of "banning political speech" even means.




johnnyFive  ·  16 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    People should make their own decisions about how to spend their money.

And what happens when Comcast decides that I can no longer exercise my choice to spend money on Netflix?

    What's so bad about a world that includes the choice of cheap, basic internet service?

Because that's not what the ISPs are interested in doing. As I said before, why on Earth would they lower prices just because?

    But I don't understand what your language of "banning political speech" even means.

Say Congress discusses the possibility of overriding the FCC's decision. What's to stop Comcast or Verizon or Time Warner or whoever from simply disallowing any of their users from accessing sites that advocate for it? What's to stop them from disallowing their users to access the sites of the EFF, the ACLU, ProPublica, any newspaper they don't like?