[ NNSquad ] Re: UDP Wars

[Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>]

First, I clearly noted in the message referenced below that my
statement regarding regulation was my personal view.  It's not
a statement of NNSquad policy.

I know how the game is played when it comes to fighting regulation
of services.  The modus operandi hasn't changed fundamentally 
in ages.

Arguments that equate any form of regulation with destruction of
transportation and communications-related industries have been
standard fare.  The railroad barons used them, as did Ma Bell and
countless others.  We're continually told that there's no form of
regulation that won't cause these industries to take their ball(s)
and just go home.  

Meanwhile, these same industries called for resources -- rights of
way, pole access, spectrum -- but didn't want rules, oversight, or
often even disclosure requirements of any kind.  If there's a
supposedly evil bogeyman that can be used as a focus for attacks,
all the better to try divert attention from how the need for
meaningful competition plays into the mix.  For the ISP industry
these days, that designated enemy seems to be Google.

Brett constantly speaks of his inability to get licensed spectrum
that could help him expand.  I agree, spectrum policy in this
country is a mess.  But my sense is that what Brett (and others in
the wireless ISP industry) really want is spectrum with no strings
attached.  That's a whole different -- and likely unworkable -- ball game.

I have a certain emotional attachment to the history of the Internet
for obvious reasons, but frankly the history of the Net -- in terms
of what it was or how it has been "managed" up to now, isn't worth
much more than a plugged nickel in terms of moving forward.  We need
to face the reality of the Internet today -- and tomorrow.

The Internet is not a frill or toy or experiment any more.  It has
become fundamental to business, commerce, health, our personal lives,
and virtually all other aspects of society.  Just as water, power,
and telephone systems (most of them still not government-owned, it
should be noted) in turn moved from ad hoc systems to more regulated
structures to serve consumers as society deemed appropriate,
pressures are building that will push the Internet in similar
directions -- and rightly so, I believe.  

This is not to say that the specifics of any oversight/regulatory 
framework for the Internet need to look exactly like those for 
traditional utilities.  In fact, there's an enormous possible range
of approaches and "intensities" that are possible and worthy of
serious debate.

But arguments that loudly proclaim that *any* form of significant
regulation of the Internet will somehow drive ISPs out of business
and destroy the Internet are hogwash.  We've heard these arguments
before by other industries, and in the final analysis society has
determined that a reasonable regulatory balance -- a work in progress
to be sure -- best serves society. 

It seems likely that society will ultimately make some sort of
similar determination in the area of Internet access and backbone
services.  

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org 
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, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com 
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com 

 - - -


> Lauren Weinstein wrote:
> > [...]
> > I personally do not believe that the current largely ad hoc and
> > unregulated landscape in this sphere can yield appropriate long-term
> > solutions, especially from the standpoint of helping to assure
> > reasonable operational parity for customers in different locations
> > and using different ISPs (which are making independent and often
> > proprietary decisions regarding their network management policies).
> >
> > It's time that we stop looking at the Internet only as a patchwork
> > of independent, typically unregulated networks, and more in terms of
> > an overall interconnected system that may need some level and forms of
> > oversight similar to those long considered appropriate for other
> > critical utility-related functions.
> That limits the debate to one narrowly defined viewpoint.  It presumes 
> that one party, the consumers, should have a predominant influence over 
> an entire business sector.  It also presumes that business entities must 
> be subjected to some sort of government sponsored organization in order 
> to secure consumer influence of the marketplace.
> 
> While I think a very large percentage of the participants on this list 
> agree with those presumptions, excluding large chunks of the problem 
> space and solution space does not seem beneficial.  If it is the goal of 
> NNSquad to adopt this viewpoint, perhaps that should be clearly stated 
> so that those that agree can proceed and those who disagree can continue 
> their debate elsewhere.
> 
> Kelly