{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/11/2014 5:40:46 PM
12
No. The government shouldn't be paying for anything private like that.
If you want internet, get a job.
If you want free internet access, go to your local library.
English
-
That's the thing, anywhere in the U.S., internet companies can own a monopoly in that area and charge you more for what you really get. You can have less than 10mbps and pay $80 a month for just internet by itself.
-
It's very rare that you'll ever find a local monopoly. Give some examples that make up more than 1% of the US and maybe you'll have a foundation for your argument.
-
[quote]#kindaserious[/quote] Maybe if I remember
-
I pay 150 a month for TV/Internet from comcast. I get up to 25mbsp. 150 is nothing.....Cmon now.
-
Not everyone can get that same price.
-
Thats my point. I pay for top of the line stuff (when it comes to TV). I could have internet by itself for just 49.99 a month. If you can't afford 50 bucks a month, you don't need internet.
-
Depends on where you live. $70 gets me 5 mbs while the same company offers 1gb about 30 miles away for for cheaper. Verizon charges $150 for 300mbs and so on.
-
Edited by Gatsby: 2/11/2014 5:52:17 PMWhat jim said is correct, it should be regulated by government. That's the case in the UK, if you look at the internet providers they generally all have a similar price for what you get.
-
No one is forcing you to buy it.
-
So, if anything, there should be quality regulation. But in no way should there be nationalized Internet. It's supposed to be equal, not dictated.
-
This is what is needed, regulation.
-
While that would seem to be a good idea, no. I don't want government regulated Internet. I like net neutrality.
