Sometimes maybe but other times the regulations are there for very good reasons, such as public health. Would removing regulation of advertising benefit the honest?
Deregulation of the banking sector in recent decades plays a large part in the financial nightmare that has begun. I would certainly agree that one function of regulation is to make certain sectors inaccessible to smaller players, ut it often puts some shackles on the corporations too. Many times the lobbying they engage in is designed to weaken the regulation (eg food labelling). Corrupt and unfair it may be, but I still prefer the rule of law to a free-for-all. As for network scarcity, I dont find it easy to fully understand the realities. If things were more open, then the near monopolies of the telecoms companies could certainly be overcome. They will abuse their position, just like they did with traditional telecoms over the decades. But its unclear whether smaller players could actually have built the necessary infrastructure for something like the internet. Indeed without governments or corporations, I am unsure how much of the IT revolution would have happened at all. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All of you are assuming network scarcity. Networks are only scarce when > regulated by a government (FCC, USPS, et al.) Most government regulation is > designed by large corporate lobbyists to thwart competition pressure from > smaller players. Deregulation benefits the honest. > > > David Meade wrote: > > Yeah the scary stuffs starts when they start saying > > > > "Video costs $1 ... unless you're getting it from the Comcast Media > > Store - then its free!" That violates net neutrality. > > > > It's also worth remembering that from the ISP standpoint - the > > publisher/hoster IS paying for the bandwidth used ... so some could > > argue here they're charging at both ends for the same thing. >
