Hello! The Technology Liberation Front is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I'm a software engineer who has built web applications for Office Depot, Target, AIG (no I'm not proud of it) and many others. J. Stephens apparently has not worked in the private sector....
- Exactly.
- If I make a website that has a 10GB database and another with a 10,000GB database, the cost of the second is not 1000 times that of the first. The second site would perhaps cost more to host, but...
- Google may not provide monetary consideration to those who create the content that helps enable Google to generate revenue, but so what? The search engine-web publisher transaction is a purely...
- Adam -- Another very well written piece. When I get these by email, however, the author's name doesn't appear at the top, as it does on this page. I assume different authors on published in...
The Technology Liberation Front
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Will Broadband Carriers Block VoIP?
Started by TLF · 11 months ago
No excerpt available. Jump to website »
4 years ago
Adam is right about many things but not this. A carrier will rationally block or at least slow Vonage if the carrier offers a competing product. If the carrier can be sure nothing will be done or it can do so unnoticed, its interest in blocking increases.
It is true that public and government pressure can stop a company from blocking Vonage, and indeed that would be preferable to regulation. But what creates public pressure is not arguing that regulation is out of the question, but rather the threat of regulation itself. Indeed the regulatory threat approach is exactly the one Michael Powell takes.
Adam's argument can be (unfairly) compared to an argument that we don't need murder laws because the public is against murder and most people are decent. It is the bad actors that the law cares about, and what people might do in the absence of a regulatory threat. The closest comparison is to antitrust. Today, companies may not engage in anti-competitive behavior, like price-fixing, all that often. But we must ask whether that is because they don't think it advantageous, or whether they threat of enforcement discourages such behavior.
The actions of carriers, if true, are a textbook example of vertical foreclosure. To rule out possible enforcement against such anti-competitive behavior is folly.
Tim Wu
3 years ago