When change is only constant, why ban it? Read WSJ's lead AT&T-Yahoo article

Today's lead WSJ article "As Power shifts, AT&T may alter Yahoo pact" is a must read.

• The wonderful lesson of this article is that the only constant in life is change.
• The article is replete with real life examples with how deals and visions of the future -- made sense at one time -- but "changed" or evolved with the evolution of the Internet, innovation and changing corporate fortunes.
• The policy lesson from this illuminating article is that it spotlights the complete folly of trying to pass a net neutrality law which would freeze the current architecture and competitive state of play -- permanently.
• Not only is it nonsensical to get in the way of the Internet's constant and dynamic evolution, but it exposes the human folly of being certain about what the future holds.
• This insightful article shows how some of the best minds can't anticpate all of the unexpected twists and turns the Internet economy can and does take.

The article also explains the AT&T-Yahoo pact from 2001 which gave Yahoo the "exclusive" to be SBC/AT&T's default webpage and search engine.

• But wait a minute!
• Hasn't the ItsOurNet coalition, led by Google and involving Yahoo and others, been saying that the net is nuetral now and that exclusive deals should be banned by a net neutrality law?
• Could it be that the online giants have misled everyone?
• Could it be that they are self-serving hypocrites that are only looking out for themselves?
• Doesn't the article also explain how Google pays Dell and Newscorp's MySpace to be the exclusive search engine?
• Can you say: "Google's Hypocritic Oath"?

Bottom line: This illuminating in depth article exposes the false premise of NN proponents that the Net is and always been neutral. 

• It also is a humbling example of how hard it is to predict the future and why companies must be free from regulation and able to respond to ever-changing market forces.