> Suppose you want to compete with Amazon, and you want Amazon to pay the same UPS rates you pay. It may make sense for Amazon to acquire UPS, or build a compet

> Suppose you want to compete with Amazon, and you want Amazon to pay the same UPS rates you pay. It may make sense for Amazon to acquire UPS, or build a competitor to achieve rates that are more natural at their scale. [...] Vertical integration like this isn’t necessarily anticompetitive. Amazon, for example, runs AWS, but doesn’t appear to have engaged in anticompetitive practices with prospective competitors who run on AWS. Nevertheless, the scenarios above could be more undesirable for competition than the initial unregulated scenarios. The article resume is "don't be pro regulation, because X company might acquire W company and create a vertical company?", because that is really not smart. If it makes sense for Amazon to acquire UPS or run it's own courier, since it's not illegal to do so, be sure that it will. The Net Neutrality has nothing to do with this. Corporations don't do any favors, last time I checked. According to the author's reasoning we should let any bill pass by, because hey if we push hard on the other direction, only God knows what other solution might find corp-X to make money, better the devil you see and we could go on like this for ever. Hence: * We should leave the NSA do it's job, because repercussions of our action - of protesting - might be grave! * We should have accepted the DRM on mp3s, because Sony might buy an ISP. * etc, etc, etc...