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

Fri Apr 25 13:23:20 UTC 2014

On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon at 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 535 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140425/08799638/attachment.sig>