NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Dave Farber Warns Against Net Neutrality (Washington Post)
ISPs are virtually unregulated, Bob. And Big Telecom has been plying legislators with gold for decades to dilute basic telecom regulations largely into meaninglessness. Here in California, since AT&T has been significantly de-tariffed, the cost of call forwarding (unless you buy a fancy package full of custom calling features that you probably don't want) has been jacked up to the point that it costs almost half as much as basic POTS service, maybe more by now. Just keeping toll and basic long distance service on a line -- even unused and with outrageously high per-minute charges -- has become increasingly expensive. I know that you would like to wash away all of the existing telecom landscape and start fresh, but that's not going to happen in the immediate future, and in the short to medium term appropriate and sensible regulation of ISPs to protect both consumers' and society's interests is absolutely crucial. Pie in the Sky does not a scorned subscriber save. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@vortex.com Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein - - - On 09/26 13:45, Bob Frankston wrote: > We're not talking about whether there should be regulation - we already have > regulation but it's very heavy-handed and intrusive because the rules are at > odds with reality. The complexity is a result of a problem that is badly > framed. If "neutrality" were done in the same style as the existing > regulation, with each kind of bit and which kind of kind of bits (as in > rules about kind of phone calls) were treated in its own special way then I > would share Dave's concerns. > > > > But as I wrote in http://frankston.com/?n=IPM3 we seem to be taking a more > enlightened approach that gets to the heart of the matter - the idea that > bits are fundamental and fungible. This would greatly reduce the amount of > regulation needed. In fact, once we frame the issue in terms of bits rather > than services we would need very little regulation. > > > > So, once again I would think that those who favor less regulation would be > the most ardent supporters of (properly framed) neutrality and most in favor > of removing even the appearance of conflict of interest by assuring that > those who manage the physical infrastructure aren't also in the business of > selling services. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org > [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of > Vint Cerf > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 07:51 > To: Lauren Weinstein > Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org > Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Dave Farber Warns Against Net Neutrality > (Washington Post) > > > > I think Dave's position, which is largely unchanged, is that > > regulation is never right. Plainly, I disagree here and believe that > > it is entirely possible to establish a fair framework in which it is > > not necessary for broadband service providers to do anything more than > > manage congestion and allocation of capacity in a fashion commensurate > > with the service level to which the users have subscribed. > > > > vint > > > > On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Lauren Weinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > Dave Farber Warns Against Net Neutrality (Washington Post) > > > > > > http://bit.ly/uAC2i (Washington Post) > > > > > > --Lauren-- > > > NNSquad Moderator >