[Florin_Andrei]

Do you trust the Federal government to dictate what goes down the road and who is allowed to drive?

I recommend blind trust in nobody, as a rule. But with the government, at least there's the option of voting against the current office holders. Whereas when a Comcast-TimeWarner super-juggernaut takes over the whole market, what are my options? My lawyers versus theirs? Yeah, that would end up "well".

[ahomescu1]

With the government, at election time, you have the option to vote between one corrupt asshole or the other. With corporations, you can just choose to not buy from them (therefore starving them of money).

[Florin_Andrei]

So, in the case we're discussing here (and directly applicable to my own situation BTW, but that's anecdotal), people will have the "choice" between, let's see... Comcast-TimeWarner and... Comcast-TimeWarner. Great choice, I'll take seven!

Or I could choose to not buy, therefore starving myself of the resources they provide. That's even better!

[ahomescu1]

So you really, really have to have Internet/cable, and they must give it to you cheaply and at high quality? If you're not even considering the option of walking away from them, you're giving them enormous leverage over you.

EDIT: This is the behavior of "rational economic actors", IMHO. If the benefit you get from the expensive Internet they offer is bigger than the cost, it's rational to take it. If it isn't, then it's rational to pass on it. If enough people do this, then the corporation realizes they get more customers by lowering prices (if they also act as "rational actors").

[wpietri]

Many people really, in a practical sense, do have to have the Internet, and at reasonably high quality. Work and school being two common cases.

The 'rational actor' model is to economics what spherical cows [1] are to dairy farms. It is a simplifying assumption that is useful for certain general cases, but if you ever find yourself depending upon it in an argument, you're working at too shallow a level.

In this case, though, even if the rational-actor model were valid, you'd be wrong. In the case of monopolies and oligopolies, the rational-actor approach is to, basically, let yourself be screwed by the monopolist.

For example, in my case I'm in an area where I pay more money for worse broadband (ADSL) because I hate monopolists like Comcast. From an economics perspective, I'm an irrational actor, because I'm not optimizing for my own interests.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

[ahomescu1]

> Many people really, in a practical sense, do have to have the Internet, and at reasonably high quality. Work and school being two common cases.

Work and school are economic investments with concrete returns; financially, you get more out of Internet access than you pay. If you didn't need Internet for either of these, and just used it for Netflix or World of Warcraft (or any kind of recreation), would you reconsider paying for it?

[wpietri]

Sorry, I'm not interested in jumping through your theoretical hoops. As a non-Comcast user who does need the internet, that doesn't seem like an interesting game to me.

[FedRegister]

Then do the constituents of your city, county, state, and country a service and either stand for election, volunteer time for a candidate that's not an asshole, or donate money to the campaign of a candidate that's not an asshole so they get on the ballot. Otherwise you get what you deserve.