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

[Fred]

On Wednesday 10 May 2006 21:49, Ben Scott uttered thusly:
...
>   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?

I was going to stay out of this debate, but...

With gas and electricity, both have a direct cost to the providers. The 
providers must pay x for each unit, and they charge you x+p for what you 
use, p being, of course, their profit margin.

Data, on the other hand, *is* in a different universe. Your ISP does not 
incur costs on a per-packet basis. Data is not harvested from mines or wells 
at great expense. Data is virtual. It's not even provided by the ISP, but 
the ISP serves merely as a conduit for its transfer. And they must bear 
relatively fixed costs for *bandwidth* capacity, not for the data transfer 
itself per se. And most *do* charge on that basis -- for the bandwidth, not 
the actual data.

Having said that, I will also state that I am NOT in favor of government 
regulation. The less government intervention, the better.

...
> >    Gov't can -- and often does -- do wildly innovative things.
>
>   Granted, but irrelevant to the question of how regulation stifles
> innovation.

I would disagree that government does innovative things. What it does, if 
anything, is provides funding and backing for innovative *individuals*. And 
hopefully that "innovation" is to the benefit of us all -- but usually 
that's not the case. Case in point: Real ID, which is something we must all 
fight if we wish to retain what few freedoms we still have. Real ID will 
only serve to give government even more control of us *law abiding* 
citizens, but will do little to stop what they will claim it is for -- if 
even those claims hold any water. But I digress.

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

We must always be vigilant to keep our eyes on what our government is doing 
and what it claims is "good for us".

Unless you believe, of course, that the government is your friend.

>   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.

There is no need for much of the regulations that are already in place in 
many areas. Regs bureaucratizes things and makes doing business far more 
expensive than need be without offering any real benefits, and on top of 
which creating all sorts of "unintended" consequences. I use the quotes 
because sometimes those consequences *are* intentional.

Case in point: all of the reporting the banks must do to the IRS on transfers 
over $10K was claimed initially to thwart drug money laundering, but later 
it came out that the *real* reason was to give the IRS better tabs on what 
you and I as tax payers are doing. More control to the government over our 
pocketbooks.

>   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!

The law can never hope to be detailed enough to be truly effective without 
consequences.

Hence, this forms the basis for my assertion that:

Government can never eliminate misery, but only move it from one location to 
another, usually creating more along the way.

Also: the road to Hell is paved with "Good Intentions".

As well, politicians are usually not the brightest crayons in the box when it 
comes to technological issues -- or much else, for that matter.

>   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.

Agreed. And there ARE times we may need to kill. In defense of our families 
and loved ones, for example. I am very much the pacifist -- in theory at 
least. But I will not hesitate for one second to exact defensive violence to 
curtail offensive violence to protect those I care for.

-Freedom Fred