[ultrahate]

I think yall are on the wrong side of this. Benefits of the free market vanish once regulations begin. If comcast wants to charge by the hour, let 'em try. How long until some guy creates the same product for 1/100 the price?

Scarcity being the key point here. You don't have a RIGHT to use the internet, that's why it works in the first place as a commodity of sorts.

I want the market to destroy comcast, Google fiber, etc. No more megacorp ISPs.

I'd love to see the FCC dissolved entirely, tbh. We're not helpless, if like a meshnet initiative r we got some real big faces behind it, we'd have a gov-proof Internet in no time.

[AnthonyMouse]

> How long until some guy creates the same product for 1/100 the price?

A last mile telecommunications network to your house? Comcast is known to immediately increase speeds and slash prices whenever anyone does, but only in the specific region the competitor offers service, thereby ensuring that the new competitor is unprofitable and that all future competitors get the message not to do that.

So presumably indefinitely.

[nickthemagicman]

It has nothing to do with the free market.

Ending net neutrality simply gives control of the internet to companies with currently established hardware monopolies.

Net neutrality is what's keeping the internet a free market currently.

[hyperdunc]

Right. The seeming paradox is that a truly free-market needs regulation to maintain its existence.

[teddyh]

Not really a paradox – a free society needs laws to maintain its existence.

[lukeadams]

I understand the sentiment, but doesn't it sound much more reasonable to have strictly enforced net neutrality (or consumer protection policy X), than it does to assume the "free market will take care of it someday"? These megacorps have a stranglehold on large swaths of the States – they won't allow challengers without a fight.

[ktRolster]

"free market will take care of it someday"?

I kind of hope it will be fixed sooner than "someday"

[lukeadams]

Precisely.

[ultrahate]

Well actually I'd say that I just explained exactly why that's a bad idea. No business is too big for consumers to choose to destroy. Yahoo is a good case in point. People chose, Yahoo was killed.

The free market could do it overnight tonight, if people chose to. I get the feeling there's a lot of uninformed people who think the free market is some boogie man voodoo science that someone made up, but it's all black and white in reality. The core forces of markets are very well understood for the past... Oh about 400+ years.

"wouldn't it be better to just let the govt strictly enforce arbitrary rules with zero checks and balances from people who actually have to experience it?"

No.

[lukeadams]

I agree with you that unchecked enforcement of rules by the government is a negative. But perhaps you would agree with me that net neutrality, and perhaps more broadly the FCC, are not in an "unchecked" state.

Like I said in my original comment though: I don't disagree with you entirely; I understand that the free market in most cases does correct itself. It just seems that there is a certain balance required for free-market correction, which if upset, allows for unchecked behavior by private companies.

I suppose a better articulation is as follows: the free market, when working correctly, allows me to choose with my wallet. I literally can't do that in my city, unless you mean to say that spending thousands to millions to construct my own ISP is a reasonable alternative to true competition. At least from a consumer perspective? My point was that net neutrality would solve this specific issue in a top down manner, removing the need for people in cities across the country to "take matters into their own hands".

It seems that you are suggesting that free market forces are capable of correcting all imbalances? (not 100% sure your position)