|
|
|
|
|
by ElEmEnOhP
3114 days ago
|
|
Comcast could also just throw a 10 gig cap on your line regardless of whether net neutrality. It is not in Comcast's interest to cripple your internet usage as they'll just bleed customers to the wireless providers (who don't fall under net neutrality to begin with anyway). I see the logic a bit with MIT's article, but at the same time most smaller startups are probably just piggy backing off of AWS anyway. Harvard business review has a good write-up here if you don't want a hyper-politicized Chicken Little take on it. https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-an... |
|
I don't follow the "Chicken Little" take. I see it more as a downward slope. It will be introduced as a benefit at first—and whatever allows these kinds of companies a significant increase in margin, they will ultimately pursue. If there's something to be counted on in the whole mess it's greed (and, in turn, stock performance). In this way, corporate bodies have one permissible direction.
The wireless situation here in Canada would be more dire, as the same companies operating cable/sat television packages, internet, and wireless tend to be one of 4 conglomerates who own and operate a few subsidiaries. Outside of a small number of independents, we would ultimately be stuck. Considering those same conglomerates own most of the infrastructure, we might be stuck regardless who operates our consumer-level services. (edit) Should something like this occur in Canada.