ApolloSimba t1_j9ju7pi wrote
Reply to comment by Organic_Experience69 in Boston Internet Provider Starry Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy by void_boi
I had RCN for years and my experience with them was exponentially worse than comcast
Organic_Experience69 t1_j9juomz wrote
Again they are still the only reason you have a cheaper Comcast. If RCN stops existing expect your internet bill to at least triple.
ApolloSimba t1_j9jw98i wrote
Yes, I understand how monopolies work. The solution is making internet a public utility not more internet corporations. RCN and Comcast are both horrible. I happen to be in a place where I have access to both so my experience is slightly less horrible than when someone has access to only one.
Organic_Experience69 t1_j9jx5wp wrote
Do you though? Because your solution to me has been well durr durr why don't you just threaten to go to RCN to get a cheaper rate with Comcast, works everytime. Except I can't
We are never getting a public option and based on your unwillingness to support the smaller provider you're probably gonna lose that too.
ApolloSimba t1_j9jzu0l wrote
I have tried RCN. It was terrible on a scale that I have never experienced with Comcast. You keep ignoring me saying that.
Your premise erroneously limits the options available. I gave you another option but since it is not 'realistic' you disregarded it. (FYI there are at least 3 municipally owned and operated ISP's in MA alone and hundreds in the US. It is realistic.)
It's not that I am unwilling to support a smaller provider. It's that I see the smaller provider as no different than the larger one. It's all symptomatic of the same problem.
Organic_Experience69 t1_j9k047w wrote
It's not just unrealistic. It's non existent.
It's okay to say hey I'm a selfish asshole who doesn't care that they are supporting the greater of two evils. You don't have to make a lengthy diatribe about why you are justified
ApolloSimba t1_j9k0cqw wrote
As I said before, it literally exists in the commonwealth. It is realistic, it literally exists. I don't think you're a selfish asshole; you're misinformed.
Concord seems to be the closest I can find to the greater boston area with it.
Organic_Experience69 t1_j9k0gbd wrote
No I think you're the selfish asshole for supporting Comcast.
Look I've been involved in bringing a communal internet to a town that was eventually tanked because the big isp payed the board members in contract jobs. You try it.
ApolloSimba t1_j9k0kj5 wrote
I'm appreciate you trying that!
I am not trying that because I don't see it as a way individual time and effort can provide value to my community.
I do direct action by giving my time to youth programs in somerville/cambridge. Praxis has many forms.
Organic_Experience69 t1_j9k15sr wrote
Like supporting the lesser of two evils.
ApolloSimba t1_j9k38hs wrote
The only moral option is to not support evil. But alas I need internet to work and I need to work to eat.
Organic_Experience69 t1_j9k3nod wrote
People vote for the lesser of two evils all the time. That's why Biden won for instance. You are just being obtuse and selfish in this particular circumstance
ApolloSimba t1_j9k42sx wrote
Correct but that was not a moral decision. The moral decision there is to abstain or to write in.
But we live in a FPTP voting system which essentially only allows two viable candidates. So someone can choose to make the moral decision (abstain or write in) or the make a non-moral decision that's forced upon them because of a system they did not choose. Sound similar?
Organic_Experience69 t1_j9kg29h wrote
You're assuming morality is binary when it is not.
ApolloSimba t1_j9kmvly wrote
No, I am not. But in this case, I can confidently say supporting evil of any sort (even if it is a lesser evil) is not a moral choice.
Is supporting the lesser of two evils an ethical choice - probs
Is supporting the lesser of two evils a practical choice. - Oh yah.
Is supporting the lesser of two evils a moral choice - supporting evil by definition is not moral.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments