Is it? If it's more expensive for them to get it right, then maybe not getting involved in the adjudication makes sense.
It does seem like a great reason for creators to not publish on YouTube, however.
Once there is sufficient competition I would expect them to start adjudicating.
And before someone jumps in and blames the money train, capitalism, etc. Please let me know how you would run a business that is not profitable. The money to pay salaries has to come from somewhere.
So, root cause is media conglomerates again. That just underscores my belief we should be tackling broadband ISP monopolies, and that midterms are important to secure the final FCC seat. Then we can reclassify broadband to 100 Mbps instead of the miniscule 25 Mbps that we have now. The types of service customers are actually getting will become more clear, and that should foster competition.
Personally I'd like to see them aimed at regional broadband ISP monopolies first, since that is an underlying infrastructure for the services we use.
I'm not sure where the FTC is on this, but I know the focus in media has shifted in recent years from Comcast etc. to FAANG. Perhaps that's because the problems from the platform-based monopolies enabled by ISPs are closer and thus more apparent to us. Or, maybe it's a campaign propped up by ISPs to take the focus off of them.
As a European, I have a hard time understanding what the US is doing and not doing regarding broadband regulations. As I do understand it from a distance, the ISPs had always argued and broadened their claims with regard to data that is accessible to the big platforms. There seems to be some "natural anti-alliance", with the parties involved seeking political alliances, which in turn provide the public attention or – more importantly – the lack thereof. (The idea of free businesses and public services being mutual exclusive, certainly doesn't help either.)
I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, the argument has been that broadband is expensive to roll out to non-urban areas. So they'll make exclusive agreements with municipalities, and/or take government money to complete the work.
From a customer's perspective, it seems they take the money and run to the bank. Where competition is low, and that's a lot of places, so is the quality of customer service and the provided speeds. Fees can be high, and for the last 20 years they've been trying to figure out how to get even more money by gutting net neutrality. They can be very aggressive on this [1], and there aren't really any significant repercussions. You probably don't want to fine a company out of existence, and any fine you do apply doesn't mean much if they get to keep their customers.
These ISP and content conglomerates have just gotten too big, and I think it's biting us in the form of tech monopolies that sit atop them.
The FCC is trying to redefine broadband to be 100 Mbps [2]. Almost certainly, the 2 republican commissioners will vote against that, and the democratic commissioners will vote for it. So it won't pass until the final FCC chair is filled, which Manchin is stalling in the senate [3].
Chances are it comes down to midterms. It's an important issue, the challenge is making it relatable to the public amidst other issues.
> If it's more expensive for them to get it right, then maybe not getting involved in the adjudication makes sense.
Cynical hat firmly in place, you could go a step further and just say that if it's more expensive for them to do it fairly then this is actually "right" from their point of view...
Is it? If it's more expensive for them to get it right, then maybe not getting involved in the adjudication makes sense.
It does seem like a great reason for creators to not publish on YouTube, however.
Once there is sufficient competition I would expect them to start adjudicating.
And before someone jumps in and blames the money train, capitalism, etc. Please let me know how you would run a business that is not profitable. The money to pay salaries has to come from somewhere.