justin_o_guy2 wrote on 01/31/18 at 18:27:36:Some complain, that some places can ONLY get ONE, ISP ?
Where exactly is that.?
Just because one has a hard wire, from a company going to their house, it does NOT mean that they, Have to use that company that owns that wire.
When I started supporting the end of NN I pointed out that we have one isp.
If we get screwed worse, we just do.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-ha...a neat map:
http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-isps-competition-net-neutrality-ajit-... Quote:Read any speech Pai has given in the last year and you’ll see he always talks about expanding access to broadband. “Closing the digital divide” comes up like clockwork. Most of his plan to do that, though, doesn’t involve increasing the number of ISPs competing in a given area.
Quote:Could Pai's net-neutrality plan lead ISPs to invest in more robust internet, and even offer it at cheaper prices? Possibly. But most of these companies have been sitting on piles of money for a long time, and they haven’t been very eager to spend the hundreds of millions needed to build out their private infrastructure into more places.
According to the FCC's latest Internet Access Services report (which is accurate as of 2015), just 24% of developed areas in America had at least two ISPs that offered official broadband speeds.FCC
oh and JOG, I'm not sure "Just because one has a hard wire, from a company going to their house, it does NOT mean that they, Have to use that company that owns that wire." is true. because this:
"One way to do this is a process known as “local loop unbundling.” This involves regulating ISPs to lease or open up the “last mile” of their infrastructure to other ISPs, who’d then sell internet service plans over the wires that are already in place. The immense barriers to entry for any would-be ISP would disappear.
This would be a radical change, one that’d effectively tell Comcast and Charter and Verizon that the infrastructure they helped pay for no longer belongs to them alone. But it could result in a floodgate of competition, potentially bringing far more choice between price and speeds in all parts of the country."
from the Business Insider article
Also for some reason, I'm confused, sometimes it seems like you support net neutrality, at least it's anti corruption/consolidation of power aspects but in this post you say you support the END of Net Neutrality....
given your super conservative bent, I imagine you buying their BS about NN hook, line and sinker.