Industry proponents of Net neutrality come almost exclusively from the tech sector, where there is a well known "first mover advantage" that tends to create "highly concentrated markets" --
if one narrowly defines them like the neutr-elitists do for broadband.
Interestingly, the tech sector doesn't call for legislation to regulate their own highly concentrated tech markets. Let's review tech markets with their newfound and self-serving definition of market failure, as a market where most of the share is held by two players:
What about the software operating system market? We'll be kind and say Apple makes it a duopoly by tech's definition.
What about browsers? Explorer and Firefox; a duopoly?
What about chip makers: Intel and AMD; a duopoly?
What about routers? Cisco and Juniper. A duopoly?
And it looks like the search market is devolving to two players Google and Yahoo. A potential duopoly worthy of preemptive regulation maybe?
Other than some broadband companies having a monopoly regulated history, what characteristics exist in these markets TODAY that show that they are not competitive or cannot be compettive in the future? Isn't communications now driven by the same declining cost curve as Moore's Law?
I haven't heard anyone on the Net neutrality side try and defend why broadband technology is unique in technology other than the historical legacy. Can anyone in the Net neutrality movement think? analyze? or present an evidence-based argument why broadband technology is permanently different than other technologies? And why broadband technology can't ever become competitive warranting the permanent net neutrality restrictions they support? Come on folks. Park the passion. Shelve the platitudes. Show some substance. Where's the beef?
Let's see your arguments and your evidence ... if you can produce it and are willing to publicly defend it.
