I found the future-tense re: trading off convenience for variety/openness a little odd -- particularly on the mobile internet, it's already the norm, particularly with a particular fruit-named giant.

@ #1 -- I'm assuming AT&T and the Holywood studios were the focus because the topic wasn't just anti-trust breakups, but communications media anti-trust breakups.

Tim Wu seems adept at revisionist history to accommodate his thesis. Sometimes I wish OTM would do more homework before interviewing guests.

Some examples:

- The company now called AT&T is AT&T in name only. The new AT&T has nothing like the market dominance that the old AT&T had.

- The old AT&T (through Bell Labs) did a LOT of basic research and innovated there.

Could there be a bigger violation of the separation principle than Comcast's impending acquisition of NBC?

I fully acknowledge that I may not be understanding the technical and political controversy correctly, but I have a question. A friend who works with an internet service provider says they find the greatest use of bandwidth is for downloading from porn sites. I don't think we need to shut down porn sites, but why can't we create pricing schemes that cause people to pay for the externalities they create? Do we have to maintain net neutrality for the right to have full access to downloadable porn - why can't we expect people to order their porn on DVDs, and leave on-line bandwidth for other purposes?

What confidence should I have in a historical account that describes the AT&T and Hollywood studio breakups as the most important anti-trust actions and does not mention the Standard Oil Trust?