No one would buy it and it would be considered gouging. Laws are already in place to keep gouging at bay.
People might buy it if that was all that was available and they needed it bad enough. Yes,there are laws in place to keep gouging at bay for those very reasons.
I'm not so sure that removing the Net Neutrality law isn't exactly like removing all gouging rules.
Under title II the internet was subject to regulations like ISPs having to submit proposals for new tech to the FCC. So basically, to innovate, company xyz has to get permission to use their new tech from the government. Once determinations are made, they can’t be appealed and can only be reversed by them. They can also partially regulate capital investments of existing companies and decide which of those companies can enter the ISP market. Basically, they took almost a trillion $ of GDP and put it under new regulations and entrenched monopolies.
I hope the decision will wind up to be a good thing. I would not mind some limited pricing protection in cases where ISP's have monopolies.Something to the effect that pricing must not be greater than a certain percentage where a monopoly doesn't exist would serve to protect consumers without restricting ISP's. As always government seeks to control much more than is ever necessary and complicate things beyond comprehension.
I think it will be. Regulations almost always do the opposite of what they say they will do. I know the existing “monopolies” aren’t ideal and the way things are done can be improved but they are better than the alternative. I would like to see more de-regulation. If you want to see innovation like the early days of the internet, you need less. With regulations demanding permission, you don’t get Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. There was an economist (I can’t remember his name) that said “the economy flourishes with permissionless innovation.” The problem is, you get a country where the media and politicians have their once a week immoral dragon we all need to kill and they all without a doubt want government to kill it. They prop up the problem as something only government can solve and do a pretty good job of convincing the masses. I’m not all out against government. I’m just against government always being the arbiter of all that is moral. They aren’t and a vast majority of the time make the problem worse.
I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There�s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts. � Ronald Reagan
