Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
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)
Net neutrality is an intervention of the government to protect the monopoly tactics on the part of major players.
I'm confused. Can you elaborate on how net neutrality would protect major players? Do you mean major content providers? Major broadband providers? -- Hugo
On Apr 25, 2014, at 16:08, "Larry Sheldon" <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
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)
participants (2)
-
Hugo Slabbert -
Larry Sheldon