Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Do you know what they're going to do with those low-orbit satellites?
|
So you know it must be a solution because it never worked previously. And since innovation means maybe nine failures until something finally is successful, then this one solution must work right the first time.
Previous satellite solutions came with similar promises and did not succeed. Irridium was only one of many - that also used low earth orbit satellites.
So the magic solution means we should continue subverting free markets by entrenching and enriching the duopoly? Maybe finally admit that destructive of net neutrality has always been a bad thing.
Why did we finally get broadband after it remains stifled and unavailable for 15 years? Because Federal Laws were created that made it possible for competition to enter the market. Including net neutrality. Suddenly restricting markets to only two providers is now better - according to UT reasoning? Even when the numbers say otherwise.
UT feels we can protect harm to free market competition by launching LEO satellites - even though that did not work previously.
Eventually it may work. But UT knows it is a solution so as to deny harm to free markets by destroying net neutrality.
Its called fixing the problem. Protect and restore net neutrality and other provisions from 1996 that made free market internet successful, innovative, and growing.
Data transporters only transport data. Without any regard for that data content. Then congestion even does not exist. Content providers are a separate industry that innovates when it does not service (is part of) the data transporter industry. Then free markets, innovation, lower prices, and better service all thrive.