NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: What about the right to be connected?
|
Subsidized education mostly
stops at 12th grade. And last time I checked, lawyers and
paralegals don’t work for free unless you’re in the unenviable
position of needing a public defendant. You don’t however get to sue
people with government provided lawyer unless you can pay for a lawyer or you
can find an ambulance chaser. At the very least, let’s
drop the euphemisms and call it for what it is. What you are talking
about is an entitlement program and not a “right”. The right
to Internet access is like the right to own and drive a car, so long as you pay
for the car and so long as you can follow the rules of the road. Now a
very limited entitlement program for the poor might be worth debating. I think a lot of people
(including myself) would probably be ok with some sort of limited “lifeline”
support for broadband and some partial subsidies on cheap $350 computers especially
if it’s diverted from the billions wasted Universal Service Fund each
year. But that would be means tested for those living under the
definition of poverty and it wouldn’t entitle anyone to premium wired
much less wireless connectivity, nor would it entitle them to a premium
computers. What comrade Bob seems to be asking for is much more vast in scope.
Lastly, you’ll get a
response to your blog posts when you come up with some rational and coherent
thoughts written in normal English. George From: Bob Frankston
[mailto:Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com] What do desktop and portable
computer have to do with the basic concept of connectivity? They are only a
marginal issue in terms of the large picture. Is education an entitlement? Is
access to courts and the legal system an entitlement? But before I respond further
– please respond to http://frankston.com/?n=DarnInternet
so I have a sense we are talking about the right thing. If think PC’s are
necessary it’s unlikely. From: George Ou
[mailto:george_ou@lanarchitect.net] Let’s be careful with the
use of words here Bob. You’re not talking about a “right”
to be connected; you’re talking about an “entitlement”
to universal wired and wireless broadband connectivity. Of course, the beneficiaries of
such a scheme are the relatively affluent owners of desktop and portable
computers. So I guess you’re also implying that we also have a
“right” (AKA entitlement) to a free notebook computer for every
man, woman, and child in the nation with a pulse. George Ou From:
nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Bob Frankston Genachowski makes some important points in his talk (http://openinternet.gov/read-speech.html).
It’s a very good take on neutrality but something is missing – the
fundamental right to participate in society, the right to communicate. We
recognized this right long ago by assuring that every American had the right to
postal service without having to “subscribe”. Today the Internet is serving the role the post office did.
Isn’t it time to extend that right to everyone? Why should you have to subscribe to a broadband service
provider? Especially when that service is still basically a repurposed
television service. This is no metaphor – it is a simple fact. DSL was
developed for Interactive TV and the broadband Coax was designed for TV. FiOS
contains a complete emulation of a traditional cable TV system. I can’t
help but think of the movie Idiocracy
in which water has been replaced a Brando (AKA Gatorade). The need to legislate neutrality is a strong indicator that
something is out of whack. We mustn’t settle for neutrality – we
must demand our right to be connected everywhere and all the time. As Carl
Malamud reminded us if you have to pay to participate (he used the example of
the fees to read case law) you don’t have a democracy. We tried a socialistic approach to connectivity in the
1930’s. We defined telecommunications as a service industry and created
to the FCC to charter (or license) private companies to provide the services
within a strong regulatory framework. It seemed to work but we’ve spent
decades wresting control back so we could connect our own devices. What has changed since the 1930’s is that we now have
bits. Digital signaling undermines the idea that we need a single company to
run the network. The Internet shows the power of framing connectivity in
terms of bits. We have a fundamental right to be connected. We can achieve
this by taking a market-based approach rather than trying to stretch a
1930’s socialist experiment into the 2000’s. We can do this by
applying straightforward antitrust principle to address the conflict of
interest inherent by making “television” just another application
like “web” or “email”. By shifting the model from
subscriptions to infrastructure we’d be working with the market forces
rather than against them. The desire for neutrality is really a recognition of this
right. So let’s demand our rights and opt for a direct market-based
approach. |