nanog mailing list archives

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post


From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:08:06 -0500

On 4/25/2014 9:13 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:

DeBeers Diamond cartel, which operated internationally and held an
effective monopoly on the diamond market for *decades* was apparently
beyond the reach of regulation to either assist or hinder them, and has
only recently faded somewhat in the face of competition that they can't
reach with their traditional protective tactics.

It was governments that aided and abetted their enforcements in what would have been felonies for anybody else.

The Standard Oil monopoly was obtained without the special assistance of
government as well, though they were broken up by the government. The
methods they used should be mandatory study for everyone.

Standard Oil was not a monopoly in every economist's mind. They were guilty of providing good products and services at reasonable prices.

The AT&T monopoly position *was* granted (and later revoked) by the
government.

Net neutrality is an intervention of the government to prevent monopoly
forming tactics on the part of major players, so I think it is something
worth having. It is not (unfortunately) something that is a natural
state for the Internet.

Net neutrality is an intervention of the government to protect the monopoly tactics on the part of major players.

With this, on the assumption that I will again be tossed off for "Off Topic discussions", I am out.

--
Requiescas in pace o email           Two identifying characteristics
                                        of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio      Infallibility, and the ability to
                                        learn from their mistakes.
                                          (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)


Current thread: