Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>]

Hi Mark,


> On Oct 4, 2023, at 01:17, Mark Steckel <mjs@phillywisper.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---- On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 16:26:24 -0400  Colin_Higbie via Nnagain  wrote --- 
> [snip...]
>> There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, but history shows that in the long run, government interference in the form of controlling regulations on what business may and may not do with each other, outside matters of public safety and perhaps establishing and mandating some measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation. That in turn hurts consumers in the end. 
> 
> I disagree with this on two dimensions:
> 
> 1) There are multiple ways to evalute outcomes and while innovation is important, it is not the only one to optimize for. What is best for the public may by necessity limit some forms of innovation. Wall Street has been "innovating" like crazy over the last 40+ years which has been extremely good for them, but not so much for the public.
> 
> 2) Antitrust law traditionally focused on the concentration of market power. Laws and regulations to minimize market consolidation and abuse of economic choke points is a good thing IMO. 
> 
> Over the last 40+ years, the original antitrust approach, thinking and enforcement switched to "consumer benefit" which focuses primarily on pricing to purchasers while largely ignoring market consolidation and power.

	[SM] This arguably was/is driven by an desire to work-around the existing regulations; as it turns out "consumer benefit" or "consumer harm" is hard to measure and even harder to root-cause back to acquisitions/mergers, so in a way this new focus really was never intended to reduce market consolidation, but to allow more of it. Whether one like's it or not, this approach was quite successful (in enabling more consolidation).


> This policy changed also impacted and expanded the range of permitted company mergers and acquisitions. If AT&T was not allowed to by Time-Warner, or Comcast to buy NBC, et al, the need to worry about ISPs self-dealing would be much less of an issue.

	[SM] Yes, yet even an ISP without its own media section still can offer paid prioritization for 3rd party content providers (see e.g. zero-rating of specific audio/video streaming services on mobile networks of some European carriers).


> 
> An example - The pharmaceutical industry prefers to innovate treatments over cures. Treatments generate recurring revenue, while cures generate a one time payment. What is best for the pharmaceutical industry is not always what is best for the public and human welfare.

	[SM] Great and scary example....

Regards
	Sebastian

[...]