Better law: almost nothing can be a subscription.
Printer ink should not be subscription. You should just be able to buy ink. Shows and movies should not be subscription. You should just be able to pay for what you want. Internet service should not be a subscription. You should just pay for your usage.
There’s an incredibly small number of things that benefit the consumer by being subscription. Subscriptions are to benefit the seller and usually by trying to offer as little product as possible for as much money as possible.
Shows and movies should not be subscription
In addition to the other complaint about internet services, which I agree with. This also makes little sense. Cable was essentially a subscription service to media. Media should not be locked to a service, it should be freely available to buy yourself or stream providers to license for their services and compete for price. There shouldn’t be media silos where content producers also act as sole distributors.
slight disagree on internet, usage based pricing does work for a fair amount of people, but there should also be price tiers for guaranteed speed and latency without having to resort to business plans. For example, if the ISP advertises 1gbps, they should be held to a standard of say 800mbps for at least 3 9’s reliability, and/or ping within some deviation based on your distance to the local hub.
internet should be a free public service, and if we’re going to have a government, they should be running it. the one major disadvantage of that is that they would absolutely spy on you, which the corporations freely let them do anyway, but charge us out the ass for. fuck them.
and if you want to keep the corpos (why?) it’s not even about speed: the only costs of internet access are initial infra, backbone licensing, and maintenance. none of those are super use dependent; the parts are not mechanical, and do not wear much faster with increased throughput.
