Net Neutrality, Schlocky Salesmen vs Monopolist Plumbers

Andy Kessler has written a short tongue-in-cheek summary of the net neutrality debate over on the Weekly Standard. Kessler identifies the two sides as the 'schlocky ad salesmen' (Google, Yahoo!, etc) and the 'monopolist plumbers' (Verizon, AT&T, etc) and when you add the politicians to the mix it creates a pretty untenable situation. From the article: "But the answer is not regulations imposing net neutrality. You can already smell the mandates and the loopholes once Congress gets involved. Think special, high-speed priority for campaign commercials or educational videos about global warming. Or roadblocks--like requiring emergency 911 service--to try to kill off free Internet telephone services such as Skype. And who knows what else? Network neutrality won't be the laissez-faire sandbox its supporters think, but more like used kitty litter. We all know that regulations beget more lobbyists. I'd rather let the market sort these things out."

Comments

Re:Money

[drinkypoo]

If you are wondering I have lived in Texas for some time now and can't wait for my great escape back to Europe in September.

I'm right behind you, I hope... and I was born in California.

I also hope that you didn't form your opinion of the USA based on Texas, unless you never left Austin or something. Most of Texas is a fucking pit in every way that matters. Austin is the only exception and it's got its serious drawbacks itself, but it's got too many benefits to ignore if you can handle the crap weather that persists across the entire state.

Re:Will the market really sort itself out?

[king-manic]

So, what you are saying is that solutions around problems do not exist, because you cannot see the solution only the problem. Your viewpoint is typical of the mass group think that society uses.

My analogy requires DEDUCTIVE logic, and the presumption that solutions work around problems. Where there is no problem (ie low oil prices) there is no solution (ie alternative), because there is no need to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, LINUX was a by-product of Unix, no one is disputing this. But it started out as NOTHING more than a sort of research project. The need to make it better was so great that people, not getting paid, continued to support and develop it to the point where it COULD replace the monopoly. The solution was in the developement because of a problem (M$) that existed. It gained traction as a ROUTE around M$.

My view is that if not LINUX than something else (BeOS, OS/2, who-knows-what). M$ Didn't force LINUX into existance, it forced a solution to the M$ Monopoly. LINUX was the solution but didn't have to be. Like I said, it could have been something else. We only see LINUX today because it suceeded inspite of the M$ Monopoly.

As for Oil and energy density/generation problem, how do you know that is the reason why? Perhaps someone would have figured out where Tesla was going with "free energy", perhaps something higher in energy density would have been developed, whatever. The problem is, we don't know, and everything else is ..... a plain old guess.

"The break up of standard oil didn't force the exsistance of a mysterious alternate fuel source to nto appear."

You are either a troll or a flake. None of your support actually supports yrou arguements. Monopolies stifle innovation in all examples of it's exsistance.