@ #30 can confirm. I can't even get DSL where i live. Comcast or nothing :\

EDIT: comcast or satellite MAYBE

unfortunately corporations do need their hand held by the gov at every turn because if not they try and pull this sorta shit

u cant debunk capitalism. its just not possible
heres where u slipped up. u forgot about the all powerful option c which is to take ur business elsewhere. if a company is being an asshat the people have the power to vote with their wallet and decide the survival of a company

competitors come in and sweep up all their new customers ezpz huge potg highlight $

power to the people. capitalism is best ism

like i said if any corporations try and pull some sorta shit it doesnt matter if they slip up thats going to cost them mucho dinero when all their customers are sighing up with the other guy
i very much so could be pulling this out my ass, i tried searching for a source but i head something like if walmart lost a small fraction of their customers its game over. the bigger they are the harder they fall

nothing is going to change

https://youtu.be/Vguz5CuATEE?t=3m2s

99% sure you are trolling because you always are, but regardless, the telecom industry as a whole represents a MASSIVE market failure in capitalism due to how it is structured and how high the bar of entry is. It is almost impossible to actually break into it as a 3rd party without having a massive buy-in option available. Capitalism does not work for telecom and regulations are needed.

stop feeding zar

how do you become this fucking retarded

There are a lot of regulations to stop monopolies , which end up making your point of "taking your business elsewhere / signing up for new internet provider" near impossible, because monopolies prevent competition in most cases, or competition that could harm that monopolies business. One of capitalism's biggest flaws is the monopoly part, and having regulations to stop that(therefore regulated capitalism), makes it the best economic system humans have figured out(maybe one day someone will figure out a better economic system). The point of net neutrality is to stop ISP's that are monopolies(or almost) from shutting down competition that their other products have. If Verizon wants to shut down competition in streaming videos so that a subsidiary of them, EdgeCast, becomes more popular due to lack of options, they easily could with no net neutrality.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure you're trolling so I wasted my time.

Side-note: To debunk unregulated capitalism, all you gotta do is use what Marx originally said about Monopolies. Regulations prevent that, but also make it regulated capitalism, which is harder to debunk.

https://twitter.com/henshaw/status/941133127283564544

it's almost like there actually isn't a real free competitive market for isps or something

I wouldn't say so. What's important to remember is that the FCC has traditionally tried to uphold net neutrality. ISPs have tried shit a lot, and the FCC stepped in even before net neutrality was formally implemented. It's just since been legally defined to make all those decisions very clear-cut.

You can be pretty sure that the net neutrality repeal doesn't just mean pre-2015 internet, it also means an FCC with no intention to block ISPs' shitty practices. The main worry isn't so much that there won't be net neutrality set in stone, but also an FCC that fundamentally disagrees with its principles.

Net neutrality itself is a very sane, low-overhead regulation. It takes no extra effort or cost for an ISP to uphold net neutrality. It only exists in direct response to ISPs continuously trying to do shady anti-consumer practices. It's not anti-competitive -- there's no reason it would impact a new ISP trying to enter the market.

If you really want to get rid of regulations and let the "competitive free market" thrive, the ones you should be fighting against are the ones that actually limit competition, like the ones making it extremely difficult or straight up impossible for municipal broadband or Google Fiber to expand to more cities. There are many legitimately anti-competitive regulations that exist solely to keep major ISPs as local monopolies, why is the focus on a regulation that only prevents ISPs from going out of their way to fuck people over?

Net Neutrality is a non-partisan issue that has no good arguments against it. The only argument you can make against the 2015 Net Neutrality order is that the principles of Net Neutrality (those being No Blocking, No Throttling, and No Paid Prioritization) are not legitimate for some reason or another, (despite the fact that the order itself provided actual evidence that held up in a court of law, but who cares? why would I ever read a legal document to know what it actually says?). Everything else is pure ideology mired in misinformation and outright lies. Net Neutrality makes no statements on who can be an internet provider, it only says that internet providers are not allowed to block lawful traffic, throttle lawful traffic, have 'fast-lanes,' or hide any information that would allow a consumer to make an informed decision on their purchase of internet service.

The FCC has been trying to enforce Net Neutrality since its first policy statement on the Internet in 2005, and have been committed to protecting openness and transparency on communications networks since 1968. Between the 2005 policy statement and the 2015 Net Neutrality order, the FCC was caught in legal battles that ultimately ruled that the FCC was doing the right thing, but lacked the regulatory authority to enforce the rules that they were trying to anyway. The 2015 Net Neutrality order was the culmination of Ten years of legal battles that showed the FCC lacked the regulatory authority to enforce the rules that had been laid down under the Bush administration, and which reflected over 40 years of action in protecting openness and transparency in the market. The FCC's hand was forced by the pre-existing structure of the 1934 Communications act, the 1996 Telecommunications act, and their own rulings on the internet in particular. It exists as a consequences of pre-existing rules, not as a set of new rules designed only for the purpose of government over-reach.

Here are links to some of the FCC's previous policy statements and Orders on the Internet, as well as the 1996 Telecommunications act, the 1968 Carterfone Decision, and the 1934 Communications act.

You can get most of it from just reading the 2015 Order, though. Of particular note should be pages 18 to 34, which provides a history of FCC decisions regarding the internet and communication dating back to 1968, as well as the justification for enforcing these rules.