undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbb888y ago0 comments

> but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter.

Certainly that's the first step.

There's options for the second step. But advertising seems like it would be the most powerful.

"Why use us over AT&T? Because you're not getting the Internet. You're getting what AT&T decides you should look at."

"We don't block Netflix or Hulu or a whole host of other streaming services, unlike AT&T"

0 comments

rrix28y ago

Who's advertising this when AT&T has a legal monopoly or duopoly in your town?

bb88OP8y ago

The arguments for anti-net-neutrality has basically come down to "let the free market sort it out." I don't agree with that, but if we can't have net neutrality, at least define to the customers what the "internet" means.

And in that case, the town just lost it's internet. What makes you think the residents won't remember this come election day?

topranks8y ago

The problem with the "let the market decide" is that there is no free market for Internet access in the US!

In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. So there is no "market" to normalise things. You simply cannot vote with your feet.

In Europe, where the regulatory framework is different, people would just switch ISPs if one started acting in bad faith.

bb88OP8y ago

>In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access.

And that government is elected by the people, right? Which means they could make this an election issue and vote candidates that don't support monopolies, right?

I don't understand what part of my statement you're arguing with.

2 more replies

icebraining8y ago

Except they haven't, really. They can still turn on their phone and login onto Facebook and watch stuff on YouTube. Someone telling them they no longer have Internet will just sound silly.

zentiggr8y ago

Oh god I really hate that that sounds so accurate in so many cases.

How do we provide a kiddie day care service level for people who won't or don't want to care, and a full service level for the rest of us?

Or do I owe the Internet an apology?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

rrix28y ago

Who's advertising this when AT&T has a legal monopoly or duopoly in your town?

bb88OP8y ago

And in that case, the town just lost it's internet. What makes you think the residents won't remember this come election day?

topranks8y ago

The problem with the "let the market decide" is that there is no free market for Internet access in the US!

In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. So there is no "market" to normalise things. You simply cannot vote with your feet.

In Europe, where the regulatory framework is different, people would just switch ISPs if one started acting in bad faith.

bb88OP8y ago

>In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access.

And that government is elected by the people, right? Which means they could make this an election issue and vote candidates that don't support monopolies, right?

I don't understand what part of my statement you're arguing with.

2 more replies

icebraining8y ago

Except they haven't, really. They can still turn on their phone and login onto Facebook and watch stuff on YouTube. Someone telling them they no longer have Internet will just sound silly.

zentiggr8y ago

Oh god I really hate that that sounds so accurate in so many cases.

How do we provide a kiddie day care service level for people who won't or don't want to care, and a full service level for the rest of us?

Or do I owe the Internet an apology?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse