Hi, thanks for coming back! > [...] then yes, that 'neutrality' enforcement is about curtailing the ISP's revenues [...] But is that really what it's _about_?

Hi, thanks for coming back! > [...] then yes, that 'neutrality' enforcement is about curtailing the ISP's revenues [...] But is that really what it's _about_? I think it is a result, but the aim isn't to affect their revenues, the aim is to ensure fair competition, by preventing the ISPs from abusing the monopoly that the public have granted them (exclusive frequencies, cabling, etc). That is, I see it as an anti-monopolistic measure. > The FTC's trial balloons [...] are also motivated by the desire to provide a 'level playing field' for newsgatherers and story-originators, where a near-monopoly like Google, or thinly-staffed all-cut-and-paste-no-research aggregators, can't capture all the value news media create. You point out and I agree that Google is a near-monopolist, but that fact doesn't automatically make these measures anti-monopolistic in spirit. They are measures that would regulate any provider of aggregation. Wouldn't implementing such rules suggest that we see aggregators as simply parasitic? And if that's the case, why can't we just let the newspapers be protected under good old copyright (another public-approved monopoly)? No need to demand a tax on aggregation, just disallow the crawler access to your site. > Once you invite committees and congresspeople to set rules to reallocate the revenues from an activity, where do you stop? Sorry, I think that's a slippery-slope argument. Btw, wrt net-neutrality: the government started meddling with this from day one, by licensing frequencies, handing out cabling contracts, etc. So the way I see it, net-neutrality is not a market-intervention, it is a band-aid to another market-intervention. > If the FCC can ban certain service packages in the public interest, why can't the FTC force republishers to buy distribution rights from traditional media in the public interest? I think they could. The question then is, are both in the public interest? > Google wants its pot-of-gold to be protected from meddling network operators by new rulemaking. Why can't the newspapers ask for their pot-of-gold to be protected from Google by new rulemaking? Yeah, there's too much legislation that just seems designed to protect someone's pot of gold. I like the other point better: what's in the long-term public interest?