On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize. > >> Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does >> not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG >> doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty >> non-operational now. > > In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed > without regulation to protect its monopoly power. I answered in a private message: Microsoft. Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds. > Which were "Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have > monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?" and "How > is this good for the consumer?" and "How is this good for the market?" > > My answer was an attempt to say that if you don't have any government > entities allowing and protecting (two pretty much interchangeable terms, I > prefer the latter) monopolies the answer to the first question is "Huh? > What?" and to the second and third "Best service for the best price is pretty > good for everybody. Except the losers that can't rip you off without the FCC > protection." While it is probably true that the gov't had a hand in the fact I have exactly one BB provider at my home, I am not even closed to convinced that a purely open market would not have resulted in the same problem. But thanx for pointing out an answer I probably missed. -- TTFN, patrick
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
