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

[LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon)]

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)