Replies

But since this is a contract between you and your bandwidth provider, then the U.S. Government should NOT and does NOT need to be involved!

This is the heart of the matter and in principle I share your feelings.

The problem is that in many places ISPs have a de facto monopoly.

If I had the choice of 5 broadband providers and could negotiate the contract I want with one of them, fine. The reality is I pretty much have to take what Cox is offering me.

Some government regulation is appropriate in a monopoly situation.

Some government regulation is appropriate in a monopoly situation.

IF you were having an issue today, yes...I agree, but your whole idea is based on the same thought-process as liberals: every business is bad and they are ALL going to screw you, if given a chance; so let's get the Government involved to ensure the BUSINESS doesn't screw you...what we always fail to remember is that the largest, most corrupt, money laundering entity in America is the United States GOVERNMENT!

Sorry, but I don't want, nor need anymore Government intrusion into my life! I will bet you do have more options than Cox. Do you have a cellphone provider? Have you ever heard of HughesNet? There are multiple providers available to 85+% of ALL Americans! If Americans actually started cutting from the local "monopolies" and using some of those various options the prices would become more competitive. A good example: in northeastern Mississippi, for years, the only provider was local cable and they had very limited coverage. HughesNet became the #1 provider in the area. Then the cable company started widening it's footprint to compete. Then another satellite provider got a foot-hold, now HughesNet has dropped their prices and removed their hard-data limits and reduced their overage rates. But everyone in northeastern Mississippi hated that local cable company because they had a "monopoly" on the area - now that cable company is back to being the #1 provider in the area.

Most Americans think too small and think that they MUST use the local cable or the local phone or whatever. Most of the time this is not true, and, no offense, but I don't want people's shortsightedness yoking me with another Government intrusion!

Monopolies only exist when force can be used to sustain them. IE - they are approved by government.

There are very few places left in the US where there is only one provider. So few as to not even warrant being part of the NN discussion.

What this is about is the cost of bandwidth. Companies like Netflix and Amazon want everyone to pay the same and have the same access to bandwidth because it helps them and hurts their competition.

It also prevents smaller ISPs from being able to start up by preventing them from either a) restricting the amount of bandwidth available for streaming or b) preventing them from charging higher prices to the *provider* of streaming services for access to their bandwidth.

Note, there is nothing preventing them from charging their *customers* more...which is what they all end up doing because bandwidth is a cost of doing business and someone has to pay it.

So Netflix, Amazon, Spotify and other streaming services all get the same access to bandwidth. And the cost for that bandwidth - rather than being borne by only *their* customers through their subscription fee, is instead borne by *all* of an ISP’s customers - even those who don’t stream.

The reality is I pretty much have to take what Cox is offering me.

Are you saying that there is NO alternative to Cox where you live? Maybe they have a monopoly on WIRED Internet service in your location. But there are usually other options.

What about Satellite? Unless you live in an underground bunker with no outside world access, you should be able to get Satellite where you are.