offer better services----? that keep people away from their "competitors" without forcing people to go all over the internet looking for what they want?
For example,
Comcast wanted to limit or outright ban their customers from using Netflix (amongst other websites and services). A debate which still goes on even after the FCC Net Neutrality new rules. People adamantly against Obama and his administration call this new measure "unconstitutional", "unwise", "unfair", and/or "a government takeover". However, if Comcast really wanted to keep their customers from straying outside the Comcast approved content, perhaps they should provide services that meet or beat companies like Netflix. Then, Net Neutrality won't seem like an "unconstitutional", "unwise", "unfair", and/or "government takeover". Just a measure that levels the playing field and forces companies to become more competitive instead of holding customers hostage. Especially in areas where there is only one internet provider available. In those areas, they have already cornered the market on who is providing internet and, usually, cable. So, what is the harm giving them a reason to compete or allow freedom to seek services they don't provide- like unlimited free movie streaming AND free movie rentals from an extensive library that rivals companies like Blockbuster?
What this really boils down to is that they want to insure that either (A) Customers pay 4.99 for a movie rental (which they don't provide virtually every film and TV show you can think of), (B) customers order premium channels like HBO to get their movie interests (which don't provide virtually every film and TV show you can think of), or (C) wait for it to premier on regular cable (if it ever does).
This is all just an example of what I mean. What do you think?
For example,
Comcast wanted to limit or outright ban their customers from using Netflix (amongst other websites and services). A debate which still goes on even after the FCC Net Neutrality new rules. People adamantly against Obama and his administration call this new measure "unconstitutional", "unwise", "unfair", and/or "a government takeover". However, if Comcast really wanted to keep their customers from straying outside the Comcast approved content, perhaps they should provide services that meet or beat companies like Netflix. Then, Net Neutrality won't seem like an "unconstitutional", "unwise", "unfair", and/or "government takeover". Just a measure that levels the playing field and forces companies to become more competitive instead of holding customers hostage. Especially in areas where there is only one internet provider available. In those areas, they have already cornered the market on who is providing internet and, usually, cable. So, what is the harm giving them a reason to compete or allow freedom to seek services they don't provide- like unlimited free movie streaming AND free movie rentals from an extensive library that rivals companies like Blockbuster?
What this really boils down to is that they want to insure that either (A) Customers pay 4.99 for a movie rental (which they don't provide virtually every film and TV show you can think of), (B) customers order premium channels like HBO to get their movie interests (which don't provide virtually every film and TV show you can think of), or (C) wait for it to premier on regular cable (if it ever does).
This is all just an example of what I mean. What do you think?