The straw argument

Dear editor:

The straw argument, which is all they have to support their position that’s being used to remove the Title II rule from the FCC for our internet, is the same one that’s been used to convince people to go against their own best interests with health insurance, “Why should I pay for something I don’t use?”

In the first place, we currently do not pay for content on the internet, we pay for access and speed, yet the American Enterprise Institute would have us believe that we have to pay for content. That would be the case if the protections of Title II of Telcom Act is removed.

Whenever something like insurance or cable TV is sliced up into segments and charged individually, the costs to the consumer increases. Take, for example, a pie costing $100 sliced into 100 pieces with each slice costing $1. That same pie sliced into 10 pieces increases cost per slice by a factor of 10. Cable does this with programming by slicing up popular content into multiple packages, increasing consumer costs while fattening their bank accounts.

Many cable providers such as Comcast, AT&T, Time-Warner, are also being allowed to own content like Comcast owning NBC and MSNBC, Disney and Time-Warner also own various media and AT&T is looking to buy Time-Warner. They will then show preferential treatment to the content they own, which is a monopoly that should never be allowed to exist as it’s extremely dangerous to democracy, what little of it that remains.

FCC accepts public comments until July 17. Judith Zitko Hot Springs Village