> 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" <larryshel...@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) >
