Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tech101 who wrote (31780)	10/21/2009 9:39:40 AM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

re: "In advance of Thursday's meeting, 24 executives of Internet content and telecom service companies, including Google, XO Communications, Twitter and Facebook, said in a letter that without a strong anti-discrimination policy, companies like theirs may not get a fair shot on the Internet because carriers could decide to block them from ever reaching consumers." Or...carriers could decide to make said companies their exclusive or defacto partners in various clever covert or overt ways, in which case these executives will mysteriously flip their position, and redefine the meaning of "fair shot" to mean that which is most enriching to their self-interests, while at the same time praising the "neutrality" of it. The fixation on being "blocked" is unbelievable this far along in this debate. Blocking is absolute and easy to detect. It is not a tool of the skilled manipulator, unless they see some strategic advantage to "getting caught" and then immediately fixing it after public outcry (which was actually part of thier plan), as evidence that "the market" is working and regulations are not needed. I'm sure it makes the skilled manipulator smile inside, to see their opponents still focused on this blocking point. There are limitless ways to degrade performance short of blocking, that have essentially the same effect as blocking, but that can be randomized in ways that lack the distinct patterns needed if they are to serve as evidence against them. Is it really possible that a group of 24 executives still does not get this?