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

Fri Apr 25 04:57:51 UTC 2014

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.

>> So believe as you please. I'm going to believe that the FCC allowing
> monopolies (regulated or not) to charge content providers as they
> please will be bad for me and about 300 million other Americans.

"FCC allowing monopolies"  -- suppose the FCC and other regulators and 
aiders and abettors got out of the the monopoly business?

> Besides, what has this to do with my original questions?

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."

-- 
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)