Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?

Ben Scott dragonhawk at gmail.com
Wed May 10 21:50:01 EDT 2006


On 5/10/06, Randy Edwards <redwards at golgotha.net> wrote:
>    Okay, now you've done gone and provoked a rant out of me. :-)

  *Excellent*.  ;-)

> First, the idea of "regulating" the ISPs is an obvious smear.

  Excuse me?  How is that an obvious smear?

> What "regulation" are we talking about?

  Well, laws about how things have to be done are usually called that.
 Do you need me to define the word "regulation" for you?  (Now
*that's* an obvious smear. ;-) )

> We're talking about telling ISPs to keep a flat-rate business model for
> their core Internet access ...

  When laws start telling businesses what prices they can charge, I
view that as regulation, and fairly significant at that.  Sometimes
it's needed, but in my book, that solution is a last resort.  Your
opinion is apparently different from mine.

  Why, exactly, should ISPs be required to charge a flat rate?  If I
use more electricity, I pay more on my bill.  If I drive a gas
guzzling car, I pay for more gas.  If I eat more food, I pay for it.
If I print more pamphlets, or send more letters, or make more phone
calls, I pay correspondingly more.  For just about everything in the
world, the more you use, the more you pay.  Indeed, this isn't so much
a law of the US as a law of nature.

  Why is data transfer different from the rest of the universe?

> ... and not to censor their customers.

  Provide a citation or reference for that claim, please.

> ... we're talking about an increasingly critical economic
> infrastructure here.

  Granted, but irrelevant to the question of innovation.  Also
irrelevant to the question of pricing (see mail, phone, electricity,
et. al.).

>    Gov't can -- and often does -- do wildly innovative things.

  Granted, but irrelevant to the question of how regulation stifles innovation.

  All your nifty examples of how government projects can be good are
nice, but again, irrelevant to the question of stifling innovation.

  I'm not objecting on grounds that "it's da gov'mint", but that
regulation can easily become a stumbling block.  This is true whether
the regulations come from the legislature, or from a private industry
group, or even from within an organization.  A regulation -- a law, a
rule, whatever you call it -- is a restriction.  Regulations say one
cannot do certain things, or that one must do things a certain way.

  Sometimes -- I'd say "frequently", but it's impossible to measure --
new ideas will come into conflict with old regulations.

  You already saw my QoS example.  I think it's a pretty good one.
"All packets are equal" would have made perfect sense circa 1998, but
it would have made QoS for VoIP illegal.

  How about a law saying core ISPs cannot block traffic?  Sounds good,
right?  What about DDoS'es?  When SQL Slammer hit, ISPs everywhere
blocked port 1434 and got the Internet back up and running quickly.
Oops, we made that illegal.  Sorry!

  There are times where restrictions are needed.  "Thou shalt not
kill" seems to be a popular one.  But I honestly believe we're all
better off if we can get by without them.

> Regulation by definition does not thwart innovation and stifle business --
> only "bad" regulation does that.

  Sure.  It's predicting the bad that makes things difficult.  If it
were so easy to tell the bad from the good, I suspect we'd be living
in a different world.

-- Ben "Limits" Scott




More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list