Poll of the Day > *says there is no competition for ISPs*

(+) Yeah! (+)

*pays two different companies for access to the internet*

*doesn't understand oligarchy or prohibitive entry costs*
---

*puts hard-boiled egg on pizza*

*props feet up onto the squatty potty*
---

Cotton_Eye_Joe posted...

*pays two different companies for access to the internet*

okay... I'm missing something obvious here

Questionmarktarius posted...

Cotton_Eye_Joe posted...

*pays two different companies for access to the internet*

okay... I'm missing something obvious here

I'm guessing home based and mobile here.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Cotton_Eye_Joe posted...

*pays two different companies for access to the internet*

okay... I'm missing something obvious here

I'm guessing home based and mobile here.

Yup... that was pretty obvious.

I can go to 15 different grocery stores in my town, at least 5 electronic stores, and who know how many restaurants, but there are only 3 ISPs to choose from excluding the unreliable satellite internet.
---

That's the spirit!
---

Hop103 posted...

I can go to 15 different grocery stores in my town, at least 5 electronic stores, and who know how many restaurants, but there are only 3 ISPs to choose from excluding the unreliable satellite internet.

3 is luxurious. Most of the USA has only one available, if that.
---

*walks up to you meekly and rubs my cheek against yours while purring*
*Raises my tail and pushes my swollen genitals into your face*

but what if I pay the same company twice?
---

The problem is how expensive it is to start up as an ISP. It's an industry that you'd have to have tons of money to get into. There are viable alternate solutions to this issue but I'm sure most people here will just go, "LOL just let the government do everything you capitalist idiot"

OhhhJa posted...

but I'm sure most people here will just go, "LOL just let the government do everything you capitalist idiot"

Municipal internet isn't a terrible idea.

Andromicus posted...

*walks up to you meekly and rubs my cheek against yours while purring*
*Raises my tail and pushes my swollen genitals into your face*

Your grammar is atrocious, I'm not RPing with you any more.

*ignored*
---

OhhhJa posted...

There are viable alternate solutions to this issue but I'm sure most people here will just go, "LOL just let the government do everything you capitalist idiot"

Letting the government manage the infrastructure does make a fair amount of sense. At the very least, treating it as a utility (since it really is one) would alleviate a lot of the problems.
---

adjl posted...

OhhhJa posted...

There are viable alternate solutions to this issue but I'm sure most people here will just go, "LOL just let the government do everything you capitalist idiot"

Letting the government manage the infrastructure does make a fair amount of sense. At the very least, treating it as a utility (since it really is one) would alleviate a lot of the problems.

After all, nobody seems to care much about government run water.

Questionmarktarius posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Cotton_Eye_Joe posted...

*pays two different companies for access to the internet*

okay... I'm missing something obvious here

I'm guessing home based and mobile here.

Yup... that was pretty obvious.

With a name like yours, it never hurts to ask.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

adjl posted...

OhhhJa posted...

There are viable alternate solutions to this issue but I'm sure most people here will just go, "LOL just let the government do everything you capitalist idiot"

Letting the government manage the infrastructure does make a fair amount of sense. At the very least, treating it as a utility (since it really is one) would alleviate a lot of the problems.

After all, nobody seems to care much about government run water.

Except when it's horrifically botched, but there are ways to prevent that. Namely, mandate some sort of minimum standard at a higher level of government to ensure municipalities handle it well enough, and providing subsidies to help them meet those standards.

Now, the end result of such a shift would probably be metered Internet, bringing it more in line with other utilities. Really, though, paying more for using more just makes sense. People don't like the idea because they're used to a flat monthly rate, and also because metered connections tend to be pretty badly price gouged such that they end up being substantially more expensive than a flat rate. Price it such that typical customers will end up paying about what they are now, with higher- and lower-use customers paying more/less, and that's pretty justifiable.
---

adjl posted...

Except when it's horrifically botched, but there are ways to prevent that.

The Flint debacle is covered by weaseling behind "much"

adjl posted...

Really, though, paying more for using more just makes sense.

If it's based on the reality that bits are nowhere near as scarce as water, then sure. You've already covered this part, though.