Vint, believe you misinterpret what I said in writing and interviews.
I have never said that regulation is not good. What I have said is
that hazy and ambiguous terms that have been used on dangerous to
innovation. Suppose you were about to build a new building and the
regulations said it should be "reasonable", "open", "fair". An
architect attempting to design such a building would face a very
confused task. You may have the building mostly built and then find
that your assumptions about what these terms mean were wrong. You may
face lawsuits by your neighbors over what these terms mean as well as
facing the need to sue the city etc.
The bane of many such regulations is that all it does is to slow down
innovation and create jobs for lawyers.
I'd be happy to join a SMALL group which attempted to create a set of
principles and a framework for regulation which avoided these pitfalls.
Dave
I have said often that leaving the future of the Internet to the
Congress is even more dangerous. Witness the 96 act and what it did to
the CLECs.
On Sep 26, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
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 an architect
Dave Farber Warns Against Net Neutrality (Washington Post)