The argument I've made is that if they're blocking certain parts of the internet, then they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves an Internet Service Provider.
But hey, if you have advanced needs, no problem, let me refer you too our Gaming Provider and Streaming Provider subsidiaries.
Oh you need actual technical access to the internet because you write your own software? Tricky, but I'm sure our Business Technology Services Provider subsidiary will have the service you need. (You do have a business, right?)
They'd also become unreliable and untrustworthy.
"Mom, I'm going over to Timmy's house tonight. They have _good_ Internet"
(Meanwhile this whole exchange is probably already obsolete because who visits their people's houses when you have phones?)
Certainly that's the first step.
There's options for the second step. But advertising seems like it would be the most powerful.
"Why use us over AT&T? Because you're not getting the Internet. You're getting what AT&T decides you should look at."
"We don't block Netflix or Hulu or a whole host of other streaming services, unlike AT&T"
And in that case, the town just lost it's internet. What makes you think the residents won't remember this come election day?
How do we provide a kiddie day care service level for people who won't or don't want to care, and a full service level for the rest of us?
Or do I owe the Internet an apology?
In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. So there is no "market" to normalise things. You simply cannot vote with your feet.
In Europe, where the regulatory framework is different, people would just switch ISPs if one started acting in bad faith.
And that government is elected by the people, right? Which means they could make this an election issue and vote candidates that don't support monopolies, right?
I don't understand what part of my statement you're arguing with.
Most people don't have the grasp on the technicalities to even be able to make the decision to vote for a specific candidates because their internet access is sub-par
Not to mention if you vote for someone you also get all the other things that candidate aligns with, not just better internet.
(not super sure how voting on city/state level works in the us, but it should be accurate enough)
Taking a moral stand is honorable, but using your customers to do it isn't.
I really love your idea.
"Last year, a number of industry groups lobbied for a change to the FDA’s definition of chocolate — a change that would have allowed cocoa butter to be replaced with vegetable oil. At the time, Hershey’s spokesman Kirk Saville told the Harrisburg Patriot-News that “there are high-quality oils available which are equal to or better than cocoa butter in taste, nutrition, texture and function, and are preferred by consumers.”"
https://www.today.com/food/chocoholics-sour-new-hersheys-for...