aloft: the whythawk blog Do you know which emerging markets are lucrative investments?Introducing the Whythawk Spyder Curve. |
|
|
Report a comment Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site. Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report. Comment in question » Go back to the article |
By: Gavin Chait on 06 August 2007
Net Neutrality, aimed as it is at a few incumbents, creates asymmetric rules that will favour a few web 2.0 companies at the expense of what economists call a "contestable market".
Any market must be governed simply by this: there must be no force or fraud. Competitors cannot (as BA has just been found guilty of) collude to defraud the public, nor may they force people to buy their products.
If net neutrality is to mean anything then it must set a platform that is neutral for any entrant, as well as allowing incumbents to carry on their business as efficiently and effectively as they can.
Why are competitive actions performed by AT&T or Microsoft unacceptable but, when those same actions are performed by Digg or Facebook they're fine?
If your pressure for "neutrality" doesn't create this in reality then you are simply saving up a bigger problem for yourself in the future.
» Report this comment to administrator
» Reply to this comment...