On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:09 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, that "victim" could actually block Netflix and see how well their > paying customers like it.
Why block it? Simply refusing to assist it allows it to retain a level of moral high ground. > A company gaining a monopoly is not evil in and of itself, it's only when > that monopoly starts to abuse it's position. > > Either the monopoly needs to play nice willingly (even if it's not maximizing > it's revenue and minimizing it's investment), or it needs to be regulated to > force it to play nice, or the monopoly needs to be broken. And I don't think there's anyone here who would argue against ending the monopoly. But the monopoly is entirely a government creation. In the Telco space the monopoly can be eliminated on a state by state basis fairly quickly. In the cable space, it will take about seven years or so for the various franchise agreements to expire and be replaced with competitive agreements instead. > But, while breaking the monopoly is the best thing, what should be done while > the monopoly continues to exist? Nothing. This is a monster of **OUR** creation and we have to live with the repercussions of our actions. > goodby Internet, the whole purpose of the Internet is to provide services to > people elsewhere, if you have to share your revenue with everyone else, the > administrative overhead will kill the business. blah blah blah ... hyperbole .... the sky is falling .... blah blah blah. >> Well, that's the reason for the argument for focusing on competition. >> Let net-neutral companies compete against net-non-neutral and see who >> is more profitable, who has more customers, who has better >> performance, cheaper prices, etc., etc., and let consumers decide for >> themselves? > > Sure, but first you have to allow the new net-neutral companies to exist. The > regulations currently prohibit that in many areas. Any regulation that stands in the way of competition can be wiped from the books. Get out and vote and make it so. > You can't both claim that regulations are evil and then claim that the > failure of there to be NN competitors which are prohibited by regulations > shows that it's not desired. I don't claim that the failure of there to be competitors shows that it is "not desired". It shows that we have been electing the wrong people to office for DECADES who have been acting against our long-term interests. > This only works if competitors are free to enter the market. The history of > community networks and how the existing big ISPs have strangled them and are > currently fighting against well-funded things like Google Fiber show that > this is not the case. That's because "existing big ISPs" use the regulations to their advantage. It requires a gutting and rewriting of almost all of the regulatory principles of the day, but that was INEVITABLE given the way telecom matured, and -- frankly -- the longer we wait to do it the harder it becomes, both because the existing businesses are deeper entrenched, and because there is more and more money in opposition to doing so. D
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
