Can someone explain in simple terms how it's not illegal for one internet provider to be the only available option for thousands of households and then to charge arbitrarily jacked up prices for something that is as much a necessity as water or electricity?
-
-
Replying to @eruditechick
There's a lot of sticking points, but one of the big ones is that companies stopped fighting over districts and just let each other have different areas. They make way more money negotiating their mini monopolies instead of fighting each other (and going into new areas often
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @FilmCritHULK @eruditechick
requires infrastructure). So the problem is the gov can't force a company to move INTO an area. And even if we broke up the larger mega-monopoly of a comcast into say east and west, your neighborhood would still be singularly owned :(
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Also the infrastructure of water and electricity is paid for/ built / controlled directly by the state whereas the internet, sadly, is not.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.