Deal with it wrote:
DuhMyBrain wrote:
That's not the issue. I have two choices for ISPs in my area. They might decide to make me pay extra to visit LRC, while instead favoring their own shitty running website. They might slow the bandwidth of the traffic down to LRC if they want to squeeze further.
It's all about a fair playing field.
It is perfectly fair for your ISP to do whatever it wants. If you don't like the service, you're free to go with another.
Err, policy making should not be about what's fair, but rather what maximizes the welfare of society. That's been historically true since Reagan. Despite political differences, prior administrations acted in good faith and at least attempted to do what they thought would maximize welfare. Unfortunately, this administration is more concerned with maximizing corporate profits and then deluding its zealot followers into believing that somehow magically those corporate profits will make their way back to consumers.
In this instance, there's some erroneous notion that reduced regulations on the ISP industry will lead to efficiency and welfare gains. This completely ignores the fact that ISPs have almost a complete monopoly power of their respective markets. Microeconomics 101 teaches us that a monopolist has every incentive to restrict supply/access to their product, which results increased prices, in order to maximizes their profits at the expense of consumer surplus. Unfortunately, it seems that no one at the FCC or republican senators actually passed microeconomics. Either that or they're not actually public servants but rather corporate servants.