8 ms·

So it's ok to regulate telephony companies and cry out when they oppose net neutrality but it's just rage against the rich when people decry AMZN or MSFT that b

So it's ok to regulate telephony companies and cry out when they oppose net neutrality but it's just rage against the rich when people decry AMZN or MSFT that build the same services that their customers previously built on their infrastructure? It would be easy to make them decide - you either provide raw compute or you provide specialized P/SaaS (databases, etc.). Sure you could own two companies (IaaS and P/SaaS), but you would have to let other P/S on your Infra, without prefering anyone else. Result? Less vendor lock-in because of forced standarization between layers.

scarface74 8y ago
The cell phone carriers have never been regulated by net neutrality and I’m okay with that. There are four major national carriers, if one carrier is customer hostile, another carrier will pick up the slack. We saw just that with the rise of T-mobile. Most people only have one company offering terrestrial internet. So yeah that should be regulated. It’s considered a natural monopoly. Companies don’t have to depend on the major cloud providers - but there are at least three major ones and IBM and Oracle are making a play. There are even smaller providers that just host VMs like Linode. I can easily imagine Linode partnering with companies to provide managed services. On top of that cloud providers hosting servers is dwarfed by the number of companies who are using colos. There are plenty of business opportunities out there. So no, I don’t think that you should have regulation to protect a business model. Government regulation and monopoly regulation in particular was meant to prevent harm to consumers. But you really trust the government to have sensible technology regulation?