Originally Posted by
Xajii
@Byrth
See, this is actually a perfect example of shitty governance that targets the wrong part of the problem because it's too difficult to tackle the actual issue.
I really can't find a legal reason why an ISP shouldn't be allowed to inject advertisements in exactly the way you describe. We let every other business do it, paid service or no. (* I'm no lawyer, so there could be a caveat here about the classification of the Internet as a service, but I have done a fair bit of research on the matter and this is where I've arrived.)
So ostensibly the reason it hasn't happened up until now is that it's not attractive to the market, and it would be a risky business move. Then why does it seem so possible right now? Because for the past 10-15 years we've seen ISPs behave the way you behave when you don't actually have any competition. Rubbin' their nipples and tellin' you they're sorry, and go elsewhere, but oh wait - there is no one else.
What I'm trying to say is that if ISPs were actually operating within how capitalism should operate, all of this would be a non issue, because the market would say "fuck you" to anyone who tried to shove ads in their browsing without a significantly reduced price (that being said, you'd better believe some people would pay a reduced rate to see an ad-included Internet.)
To say there is no oversight is silly. They did not abolish the FCC.
I just don't support any legislation that targets the wrong part of a much larger problem, especially when it seems pretty basely unconstitutional.