|
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Wednesday, April 12, 2006
started 4/12/2006; 4:40:48 PM - last post 4/19/2006; 7:18:18 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Wednesday, April 12, 2006 
4/12/2006; 8:40:48 PM (reads: 5189, responses: 4)
|
|
The Net, more or less 
| | There is a big difference between the rivers and oceans and the Internet. The former were created by God. I realize and respect many do not feel the rivers and oceans were created by God. The point is they have no owner who actively enforced property rights. |
| | The Internet infrastructure was created by man, namely investors. In this way the Internet is more like a canal, dug by someone who put the risk capital forward to make it happen. It is not yours to take. |
| | On the one hand, there's a big difference between the Internet (first paragraph) and the infrastructure on which it depends (second paragraph). Unfortunately, it's easier to understand and describe (and legislate on behalf of) the latter than the former. |
| | On the other hand, I believe Andrew has a good point. There will be unintended consequences of Net Neutrality legislation. Imagining those consequences argues against it. |
| | (Curious to see what Andrew's position will be if the final telecom legislation amounts to carrier protectionism.) |
| | Those in favor of Net Neutrality should think in terms of Eminent Domain. What are you willing to pay the carriers to remove their right to use their networks as they see fit? |
| | If you are not willing to do this, then prepare to fund a parallel public infrastructure. This would be analogous to building an Interstate Highway System adjacent to pre-existing toll roads. Some municipalities are doing this already. |
| | However, the last thing people should consider is expropriating the assets of the telecom industry. Nationalizing the use of these assets without compensation is something that Lenin himself once spoke of, when he advocated government control of the "Commanding Heights" of an economy — steel, coal and railroads. This is not a future I want for our nation. |
| | I favor the second option, along with parallel private infrastructures, built and run by companies that can imagine a greater range of business opportunities than those currently contemplated by the duopoly carriers. |
| | I've always felt Net Neutrality is a concept that expropriates the property rights of carriers in order to allow media and content companies a free-ride on their infrastructure. Google, Yahoo and other media and content companies lack ownership of a layer-one digital right of way to the consumer- so the easiest approach is to legislate the theft of it. |
| | This has never been the case for Net Neutrality. If it was, it would have had no backers at all. The problem here, as I see it, is the re-framing of Google and Yahoo as "media content companies", and of the Net as little more than a content transport system that exists mostly to move goods from a few big producers to billions of consumers. Unfortunately, both those companies have also contributed to that reframing. |
| | The Net is about much more than carriage, and it is a mistake to reduce it to that. But as long as we continue to describe the whole in terms of just some of its parts, that reduction will continue. |
Taking steps
| | Many years ago, a friend (who is far more versed in religious practices than I) explained that the monastic side of the Roman Catholic Church (and probably of others as well) was "the wide open spaces", while the visible and active church was relatively closed. This seemed odd to me, since the monastic life seems highly restricted. Yet there must be something to it, or the attraction wouldn't be there, no? |
| | Perhaps the answer can come form Andrew, a 19-year-old computer science major considering life as a Benedictine monk. His blog is From the Slype to the Garth. |
| | By the way, lest one think the monastic life less compatible with literature than with liturgy, consider the life and work of Thomas Merton. |
Can't tell you, Mom. It's classified.
discuss
|
|
jay lueckel - Re: Wednesday, April 12, 2006
4/13/2006; 9:02:26 AM (reads: 620, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Devine intervention aside, there are a couple of ways to look at this - the history of economic development in the US suggests that we have been most successful when government assists in infrastructure improvements or enterprises that can't be supported or are only partially supportable by the private sector - examples, the public has built ports, bridges, roads, canals, railroads, and interstate highways. The economics weren't there from the private sector to build the infrastructure - but governments' investment in the infrastructure facilitated further private sector economic development around these improvements.
from my perspective as a web user, it appears that private companies and enterprises have largely developed the infrastructure of the web - it's true that publicly subsidized entities such as universities and governmental agencies were involved in early stage development, but overall the private side has developed.
Rather than the interstates, maybe the railroads are a better example - initial public subsidy lead to a vibrant private sector operation (if you exclude passenger service in more modern times). Additionally, it's not like there is not sufficient capital in this country or the rest of the world to provide for the development - moreover, this is a global economic issue - multi-national companies are already engaged in the competition for customers and control of content.
These comments are just some first thoughts about the topic & we will all benefit from further discussion of this topic.
discuss
|
|
tpwk - Re: Wednesday, April 12, 2006
4/16/2006; 4:27:34 AM (reads: 696, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I guess I'm much more concerned about the slippery slope of governmental regulation than I am about whether Google has to pay some sort of fee. The Telcos are beholden to their customers, who are sure to bolt in the face off weaker service. However, recent history suggests that government really isn't beholden to anybody. The truth is, the Internet has thrived for years without strong governmental regulations. I don't think that government forced net-neutrality is a good place to introduce it.
discuss
|
|
oldhats - Re: Wednesday, April 12, 2006
4/18/2006; 4:01:36 AM (reads: 683, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Does anyone really think that we have to worry about the telcos holding Google hostage? Given their financial strength, their popularity and their market dominance, do you really beleive that they won't give the figurative finger to a telco that demands payment? The Bells have a lot more to lose if they don't "carry" Google. The market will prevail, as it almost always does.
discuss
|
|
pkp646 - Re: Wednesday, April 12, 2006
4/19/2006; 11:18:18 PM (reads: 686, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I may be beating a dead horse, but what problem is sought to be fixed by net neutrality legislation? None that I can tell since no one is violating it and no company that wanted to stay in business would. I say keep the government out of it when they don't need to be in it.
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
