The arguments for anti-net-neutrality has basically come down to "let the free market sort it out." I don't agree with that, but if we can't have net neutrality, at least define to the customers what the "internet" means.
And in that case, the town just lost it's internet. What makes you think the residents won't remember this come election day?
The problem with the "let the market decide" is that there is no free market for Internet access in the US!
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.
>In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access.
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)
Except they haven't, really. They can still turn on their phone and login onto Facebook and watch stuff on YouTube. Someone telling them they no longer have Internet will just sound silly.
And in that case, the town just lost it's internet. What makes you think the residents won't remember this come election day?