Yes they are a great example, hence the birth of Satellite radio. When there is a demand there is someone who will find a solution. It may take a while but it will be found.
Cable is only one way to get television or internet. It happens to be the BEST way, which is why it dominates. My speeds have skyrocketed, FYI. That's why Comcast dominates here.
And of course you understand that recognizing the existence and supporting that right doesn't mean that you can't disagree with the decision made, right?
None of which disproves the point I'm making. There are technical and physical limitations that make DSL or satellite internet an inherently inferior product. Not exactly a stellar argument you're making for cable companies being a free and open market.
Satellite radio did not circumvent the frequency issue. Satellite communications are also regulated for exactly the same reason as terrestrial radio.
No, it doesn't. Because Comcast owns all the lines in your neighborhood so anyone wanting to "compete" has to go through them anyway.
And yet perhaps it will only require a few miles of wire at some point as opposed to the millions of miles in the current infrastructure. The demand to access internet rapidly is not going away. If roadblocks that impede open access to it are put in place the only thing I am certain of is someone will find a way around it, and probably become a billionaire in the process.
I have no problem with private censorship.
TRANSLATION: you have no problem w/cable companies running cables through public taxpayer-funded land and then be subject to zero accountability from those said taxpayers.
I do not support state decided "public" land, or state taxes.
Because the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to free speech across the board, it only guarantees that the government cannot stop you. You have no right to use another person's platform for your speech.
I do not support state decided "public" land, or state taxes.
That's fine, but since we paid for it, we still own it. Comcast does not own all the land through which its cables run.
Yes, we get that you are an anarchist.
You do not "own" anything to do with this.
That's not true; she's making a correct Libertarian stance (which is not anarchism), but her premise is invalid. If you utilize land owned by someone else, that someone else has a right to dictate the terms on which you can use that land.
And she's arguing that's not the case--that's not Libertarianism at all.
Please provide it for us below.
The views she's expressed support no state. That's anarchy in a nutshell. You can argue certain points are libertarian, but with no type of government that is anarchy.
Comcast does not "own" the land either.
What?
I was telling you that I plan to dig up your lawn in your front yard and back yard next week to run my own cables.
Nope.
You do not own that land, and neither does Comcast.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?