Daily reminder that ISPs are NOT a monopoly. Daily reminder

>>61704270
Hot buzzwords you got there normalfag

>>61704270
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Utilities
Most consumers only have one available provider because the cost of creating the needed infrastructure prevents competition. Consumers with only one option are forced to pay whatever the company demands and the company does not have to compete for the customer's business, i.e., a monopoly.

>>61704270
>There are multiple ISPs in the US, and they all compete.
In their own regions.

File: 1500325255656.jpg (169KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1024x768px

>>61704270
>There are multiple ISPs in the US, and they all compete. That's not a monopoly.
Yeah, they have their own territory that they don't fight for. Like colluding gangsters.

>>61704420
Fucking disgusting
>/pol/ the image

>>61704443
>>61704420
>>61704415
>>61704387
And that doesn't mean that they won't compete outside of their regions if they want to make their shareholders happy.
Your argument is invalid. They are NOT monopolies.

File: 1498012468747.gif (4MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 320x240px

>>61704270
> Look at me, I'm stupid.

I find it fascinating that special people like you manage to remain alive. I genuinely do.

>>61704270
>third world problems

>>61704642
They're in cahoots though, they can each have a share of the pie and make safe and reliable profits all while raising prices, the only loser here is the masses.
In the mean time they kill off any new competition through bought legislation and phony regulations.

At the local level they're effectively monopolies, on the national level they're a gang of racketeers

>>61705226
>gang of racketeers
muh monopolies

The only ISP that actually competes is Google Fiber, and that's because it's building a completely new type of infrastructure that didn't exist before. Once it's laid its fiber it'll be a monopoly in its own sector just like cable internet providers.

>>61704270
If you love censorship you'd almost certainly be anti-net neutrality because it would allow ISPs to censor freely through throttling

>>61704270
>There are multiple ISPs in the US, and they all compete. That's not a monopoly.
not everyone has a choice in their ISP depending on their location. But you already knew that.

>>61705556
If you love censorship you'd be pro-net neutrality, and you'd support the corrupt government censoring things that hurt their feelings.

>>61705587
>government is corrupt because of corporations
>ergo we should just let the corporations do what they want

Great plan

>>61705603
>muh corporations

How's college treating you?

>>61704270
>censorship-loving neumale beta if you support net neutrality
except this is bullshit, and you know it

>>61704270
There are ISP monopolies in most rural areas of the US, you dumb frogposter.

Daily reminder that the American free market is inherently flawed, and a truly free market would never allow ISPs to violate the NAP by bullying the competition into submission with lobbying and backroom deals with politicians.

>>61704270
Saying that ISPs are not a monopoly and thinking net nuetraility causes censorship is literally retarded. Go back to r/ the_zionald

>>61704270
How much are you getting paid, senpai?

>>61704270
>Daily reminder that ISPs are NOT a monopoly
This entirely depends on your area. For example, Spectrum is the only ISP in my area that isn't DSL or worse.

We have "Ziggo" in my country that is a coax-cable monopolist. And there are only 2.5 million people with fiber internet here, might take another 20 years before it's 80+% implemented into the whole country

>>61705913
I don't get how anybody from the_faggotry could support something that would let comcast (which owns msnbc) block their fake news

File: DxxsKI0.png (8KB, 624x278px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 624x278px

>>61704270