>I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality?
Because it's not a technology issue, it's a business fairness issue. You know, the same way we let the government handle contracts.
>Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide.
One's the genie is in the corporate box, there will be no turning back. The consumer cannot decide if he is not even provided with an alternative -- or if any alternative is more expensive. Like you couldn't decide about carrier-locked phones all those years.
You either push for fairness to be regulated in law, or let the 4-5 top players divide the pie as they like.
>Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch sooner or later anyway.
And who told you that Google WONT take advantage of crashing net neutrality itself?
Because it's not a technology issue, it's a business fairness issue. You know, the same way we let the government handle contracts.
>Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide.
One's the genie is in the corporate box, there will be no turning back. The consumer cannot decide if he is not even provided with an alternative -- or if any alternative is more expensive. Like you couldn't decide about carrier-locked phones all those years.
You either push for fairness to be regulated in law, or let the 4-5 top players divide the pie as they like.
>Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch sooner or later anyway.
And who told you that Google WONT take advantage of crashing net neutrality itself?