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

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net> wrote:

> I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
>
> > Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does
> > not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG
> > doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty
> > non-operational now.
>
> In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed without regulation to protect its 
> monopoly power.

I answered in a private message: Microsoft.

Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds.


> Which were "Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or 
> guarantee packet loss?" and "How is this good for the consumer?" and "How is this good for the market?"
>
> My answer was an attempt to say that if you don't have any government entities allowing and protecting (two pretty 
> much interchangeable terms, I prefer the latter) monopolies the answer to the first question is "Huh?  What?" and to 
> the second and third "Best service for the best price is pretty good for everybody.  Except the losers that can't rip 
> you off without the FCC protection."

While it is probably true that the gov't had a hand in the fact I have exactly one BB provider at my home, I am not 
even closed to convinced that a purely open market would not have resulted in the same problem. But thanx for pointing 
out an answer I probably missed.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail