Why does "left to market" seem to imply "less protected"? I have much more trust in my connection with five competing ISPs than I would have with five regulators. I also find communication with the customer retention department smoother and more productive than trying to figure out which complaint form I need to fill.
Not always, obviously. But I think it's important to at least differentiate between the purpose of law and the purpose of business. Assuming the best case for the former but the worst case for the latter doesn't make a lot of sense.
Laws at the very least could act to limit the ability of corporations to limit access and mine user privacy - but businesses in the best case are still going to attempt to do what makes money, which will almost never mean the less lucrative option of allowing their customers greater freedom and more privacy.
I think the general thesis here is that internet freedom is more secure in an environment where it is considered a right and not a term of service.
Funny how the Nobel for economics goes exactly for the guy who try to address that..
Well if you let things unregulated, it might work, or it might not.. think Comcast, or Lehman Brothers.. thats one of the reasons why we have Governments; Given that companies working for profit its not necessarily equal to common good, specially when theres monopoly
