Slashdot Mirror
Innovation, Regulation and The Internet
Thanks to Lawrence Lessig for pointing the online version of his latest piece. It's entitled "Innovation, Regulation, and The Internet". As always, the piece is well thought, this time dealing with issues of regulation (duh) over the Internet. But the position is tricky than one would think -give it a full read, and add your thoughts below.
he fallacy here is the one so aptly pointed about by the libertarians and Randians, but not an invalid one for that: the fact that the government has the guns and the permission to use them make coercion on the part of the government qualitatively different than anything that can be generated by the worst of the private sector.
Those same guns are the ones that back up the control that corporations wield. If it weren't for the guns of the government, copyright, patents, wouldn't exist. The corps depend on regulation for their power, and so we depend on regulation to keep their power in check.
The government is supposed to regulate to benefit the people of this country, not any particular corporation or industry. If, as Lessig pointed out, open access is a proven generator of innovation, then it would be in the interest of the people of this country to ensure that the broadband networks are open and stay that way, even if it isn't to the benefit of the corps that control these networks. They'll still make a lot of money, just not as much as they might. It's a good trade-off that keeps things from stagnating.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
But it was easily 10 years ago I was connected to the Net in the UK. It is international in design.
My point is that the net as we know it today wouldn't exist if people couldn't get cheap access to it. If AT&T had been allowed to retain complete control of the phone network, they would have continued to charge astronomical prices for data transfers and other similar uses of the network. They had no inkling of the potential of the net. Cable companies are selling high-speed data transfer services for a somewhat decent price (although it's still kinda pricey), but they will likely try to control the net in other ways, such as censoring sites that they don't agree with, blocking certain ports to try to prevent people from using their network for certain things, and even blocking you from accessing content that they believe is competing with some service that they provide (at an additional cost to you of course). We need to keep the broadband networks open so that these kinds of things do not happen. They do nothing but harm to the net and the potential for innovation.
Yes, it still needs guidance. It will always. What I assert, is that the guidance should come from the same source it always has - the users.
That was Lessig's point. Regulation hasn't been done just by the users. The government has been regulating the phone companies to make sure their networks are open to everyone, otherwise we wouldn't have the kind of access we have now.
You say that telco's *could* block, eg, Linux headers if it wasn't for regulations. Please enlighten me, what USA regulations are there that prohibit packet-blocking?
Ok, I don't know of a specific law preventing them from reading packet headers and blocking based on that data, but I do know that telcos are known as "common carriers" and that they are not liable for anything that is transfered on their network, so it's not in their interests to block packets. If they did, it would: #1, make them liable for blocking things that the government would like to see blocked, and #2, cost them money both to maintain the blocking, and in lost revenue from those that they're blocking and those that want to access what they're blocking.
See MY first para; the Net isn't only USA and the USA gov't isn't needed / doesn't apply in [ironic]cyberspace[/ironic].
The US government IS needed to ensure that US citizens have the kind of access they need to the net. Otherwise our access gets controlled by the corps that run the networks and innovation and growth come to a grinding halt here in the US. If we can't use the bandwidth we have in new and creative ways, we can't go on creating things like we've been doing. The cable companies (and other broadband providers) are determined to control any innovation that happens to utilize their networks. This will not serve the public good and should not be permitted.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The point is that government regulation is what kept the phone networks open enough for the net to come into existance. This has fostered incredible growth and innovation. Whatever costs taxpayers had to pay for that regulation, it seems to have been worth it. Now, it looks like net access could come to be controlled by the broadband network owners. This would be bad. This is not what helped the net grow and thrive. This is why we need regulation of the broadband providers, just as we had regulation of the phone companies. The benefits would seem to greatly outweigh the cost.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Wake up. These companies had a lot of help building their infrastructures. Help that came from the government. We have regulations for a reason. To benefit the public. The corps receive tons of support and protection from our government, they have to give something back too. Nobody is threatening to bankrupt them. They'll still be highly profitable, just like the phone companies are today. They just can't pursue profit to the point where they start harming the public good.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Firstly, the AT&T business; just because AT&T had a monopoly (in the US), and the net thrived despite that (The 'Net is international, fool!), doesn't mean that regulation is de facto good.
First of all, the net originated in America and only in the last five years or so has it really spread across the globe in a major way. It still needs guidance and decisions made in America still play a big part in the development of the net. Now, what he's getting at is that if we didn't have open access to the phone network, the net would have remained an academic tool because it would have been worse than useless to the rest of us because it was too expensive to access. Without the rest of us on the net, we wouldn't have seen the explosion of new software and ideas that has come about since.
Then he gets on to the plus side; However, he's wrong again. If Linus decided to code Mozilla into the Kernel, it'd be pretty tricky for M$ to hack the kernel to remove it and use IE/Linux instead (if they chose do do such a thing).
Actually, Microsoft could simply start building on the kernel source that was in use before Linus went fscking insane. Simple.
Oh, but telco's could read packet headers if they chose, to remove any Linux, Audio, [insert whatever you think they may not like here] packets alongstream.
They could do that, if it weren't for regulations.
the Gov't intervened and broke AT&T's monopoly (again, IN THE USA... The 'Net doesn't only exist in America
See my first paragraph.
Universities are VERY good places to start new technologies.
Sometimes, yes. But we're talking about a physical network. It's fine to test and develop it in a university environment, but for it to be useful outside of that environment, we need to have open access to the network. If some entity has the capability of controlling that network, then they must be prevented from doing so. That's where the regulations come in.
and they say, "closed isn't okay, open isn't okay, something in-between will come up". And he accepts this?!!!
He isn't accepting this. That was his point. To explain his side of things and to let us know what's currently going on in the minds of the regulators. They currently don't plan to ensure the kind of access we've had up 'til now. We need to do something about that and let them know that we want open access.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
They do "give something back". They pay $billions in taxes.
I give the government (state and federal) nearly half my income in taxes too, but that doesn't mean they make exceptions to the law for me. Corps get all sorts of privileges that nobody else gets.
Having government bureaucrats dictate prices kills most of the incentive to innovate, and s-l-o-ws down whatever survives to a crawl.
Lessig's example of the phone network shows exactly the opposite. By regulating the network to keep it open to competition, innovation was thriving. He's saying that we should do the same with the broadband networks in order to keep things going as well as they've been going.
Had the government let the phone company keep control over the network, they would have continued to charge outrageous prices for data transfers and the net never would have taken off here in the US, or at least it would have taken much longer to do so.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually, his point seemed to be that we're all up a creek unless we can figure out a way to get the government to keep broadband as open as the internet has been up to now. Otherwise, the control will end up being more with the corporations who have no incentive to allow anyone but themselves to innovate, and great incentive to do all they can to prevent any new competition from forming.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This whole "regulation is evil" is remarkably similar to the arguments I've heard from pro-M$ people against DoJ sanctions.
I thought the same thing while I was reading the article.
Too bad some areas only have cable, with phone lines that can't sustain DSL, or cable providers would go out of business.
I live in San Antonio, TX. This is Southwestern Bell's turf. In order to get DSL here, you must live within approximately 17000 feet of the central office downtown. Since I live well over twice that distance away, I haven't got a chance in hell of getting DSL service. They've said for the last year or so that they were planning to provide service in my area, but after waiting over a year, I still haven't heard a peep about anything like that happening.
My phone lines are crappy enough that I'm lucking to get a 28.8 connection. 56K modems are useless in my neighborhood. So, I'll probably end up getting RoadRunner service instead. It's a shame, but I don't have any other option.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
What I find interesting is that the end-to-end network philosophy directly opposes quality of service support on the internet. I have always thought that QoS is essential in private LANs/WANs to shape the bandwidth efficiently, but Lessigs position would keep that off of the internet entirely.
I'm not sure I agree, but it certainly is an interesting philosophical issue: advantages and disadvantages of dumb networks vs. smart networks, especially in the case of networks being largely provided by a small number of wire-holders.
Pax -- Ob
But then again, it's just new regulation on top of old regulation... I have to wonder if the gov't made sure that it had not put in any obstacles to competition, if we would not see entire cable systems competing with each other, rather than just ISP's competing for bandwidth over the same cables. Not that that would be efficient, but sometimes redundancy can be a good thing too.
Given that there is an effective cable monopoly though, I think it's probably a good thing to force them to give us an ISP choice. I know that's what I want... maybe if Cox can be forced to give me another ISP besides @home, I can find one that will let me have a decent domain name, and won't have to keep trying in vain to get DSL just so I can do that.
Besides opening up cable lines to different ISPs, regulations should be put in place to ensure that consumers subscribing to broadband can run the major network services if they want, such as Telnet, FTP, and HTTP. If someone has something they want to publish to the world, then they should be able to host their website on their own box if they want. Of course there are businesses which sell webhosting, but then one is still at the mercy of the hosting site's decisions to pull your pages at their whim. As we've seen in the news of late, companies who provide webhosting are not going to stand up and fight for the poster's rights.
And just to play devil's advocate a little more: do you think the cable companies would have sat idly by while the phone companies were raising prices?
Why would cable companies have cared? Without cheap data over voice lines the internet would never have got to the point where anyone saw any point in offering any sort of access. When all there was was usenet (etc.) there wasn't a whole lot of cable company interest then.
BTW No regulation by government just means regulation by corporations. If cable companies get to be the only people who have access to their wires you'll soon find that you have to use some proprietary stuff "to protect the children and improve security" to get on line, no connecting any of that "unauthorized/unsecure" open source code to their lines. (Remember when only Bell made phones, no, I suppose you don't)
development.lombardi.com
Farmers are in no danger of becoming unnecessary! We all need food to live, and they are our suppliers. There is no need to "keep them alive" with subsidies and so forth.
If by this, you mean that the farming industry is in no danger of becoming unnecessary, I agree with you. However, if you mean that each farmer's job is in no danger of becoming unnecessary, you are mistaken. As technology advances, and we develop better farming methods, we need less farmers.
This thread has hit on one of my pet peeves. I grew up in a rural area, and many people there live off of farming subsidies. When I said that subsidising an entire industry is the stupidest fucking thing I had ever heard of, I just about got my ass kicked. Problem is, farmers all vote, and politcal rethoric about "the way of life" of the small farmer seems to sway a lot of folks (did I mention that Democracy doesn't work?).
Look at your phone bill next time you get it. Your paying for someone else's phone access. Why? How is that ethical? Don't ask me. But to pay for others Internet access doesn't seem ethical. Supplying Internet access to everyone, even those in rural areas could cause democratic governments to run more efficiently, but the very fact that we're subsidizing the farming industry indicates that efficiency is not a concern of a lot of voters.
Put those grad students to work! Yah whipping boys yah! If you think a Uni is the only place where you see technical innovation take a gander at Lucent or IBM (IBM moreso before they went with research-only-profitable-stuff). Corporations that can make billions of dollars developing the technical stuff for the Net will because it will make them money. Alot of good ideas HAVE come out of universities but most of those are only ideas, they aren't really hammered out until a corporation adopts said technology. In case anyone forgets their history, Unix came out of Bell Labs (AT*T) but the gub'ment said they couldn't develop computer systems so they gave the code to the Universities and sold it to various corporations but did continue to develop their own version (you may know it as System V). As long as AT&T didn't market it the gub'ment left them alone.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I imagine someone could make a pretty penny selling my a pizza subscription. Pizza to my door every Tuesday night, automatic credit card billing. Recurring revenue until I make the effort(?) to cancel, and since I'm a lazy ass American, there's little chance of that. Shit, I still haven't bothered to cancel my cable TV yet, and the only reason I got that, was to watch Babylon 5 when it switched to TNT. Babylon 5 ended in ... uh 1998?
Pizza subscriptions, no phone orders. MAKE $$$ FAST!!!
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
In other words regulation of access providers is not really taking into account that the very access these companies deny may be granted by others that see an open path for competition.
The phone companies would have eventually come around to the fact that the access that they were withholding was getting more and more outdated...
But that ignores history and reality. No one suspected that cable would ever be able to compete with phone, so no one took it into consideration when making technology decisions.
And it isn't entriely coincidental that most telecommunications advances have taken place since (de)regulation of the phone systems. Having a theoretical competitor at some future point never got AT&T to stop their ridiculous pricing structures or telling people that they merely "rent" their phones. It was the REAL presence of MCI (and the continuous legal battles) that shook the cobwebs off.
And of course cable companies couldn't offer voice services unless the lines are neutral, which is exactly what Lessig is talking about. If they could only connect you to another cable phone it wouldn't matter how cheap it was, because no one would use it.
Only by standardizing on IP with open access to phone lines have all these great competitive possibilities opened up. They simply didn't exist before, and Lessig is suggesting that we should ensure (through regulation) that this same potential for competition with new technologies on existing open systems remains...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Aargh! As usual, a lot of folks seem to see the words "regulation" and "internet" in the same sentence and assume the suggestion is being made to deny them their pr0n.
Lessig's entire article (I don't know how folks manage to miss it) is discussing how different kinds of regulation (NOT JUST GOVERNMENT REGULATION!! -- read the damn article!) affect innovation, in particular the development of the internet and to a lesser extent much of the current phone network in the US.
In particular, he points out that even Linus is subject to regulation in how much control he has over the kernel. He is regulated by the fact that if people don't like what he's doing, they can pack up the source and do someting different. So he can't simply "force" people to use bad technology because he controls linux.
This is regulation that assures positive benefits in innovation and technology, not to mention the side effect that it creates happier customers and less antagonism between providers and consumers.
Without government regulation of the phone companies, we would not have the internet. Feel free to say that Lessig is an idiot who doesn't know as much as you do, but he's still right. For those of you under the age of 15, phone companies historically made a ton of money off data lines (ISDN and T1s primarily).
They hated the idea of analog modems being used over their phone lines. They lost that fight with the "regulators" and it's a good thing or we wouldn't be worrying about the internet because no one but college students would be connected.
I think it's odd that we bitch and moan about bundling content and access together, complain about AOL owning Roadrunner cable, but at the first suggestion that something be done to prevent this monopoly from locking out competitors we start screaming about "evil regulation".
Even more odd is the fact that we geeks (who are so anal about terminology) are castigating Lessig for calling regulation by its proper name. The "regulation" he's suggesting is referred to as "DE-regulation" by phone companies and most politicians. It means removing competitive obstacles and required that the network remain neutral.
Now who wants to argue against a neutral network?...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I think perhaps the pizza delivery metaphor is a bit inappropriate in this case. The original reason for legislation like the rural electrification act is that there is no economic incentive for a utility to serve people in rural areas. The fedral government decided around the great depression that it was important for all americans to have access to basic services, like electricity and telephone access.
When the above poster argues that the government should make high speed internet access available cheaply to all he is merely suggesting that in the next several years, access to the internet will become a basic necessity that should be freely available to all. This is quite unlike pizza delivery which I think we would all agree is not necessary for our basic standard of living.
Finally the person who suggested that rural families should either deal with skyrocketing costs or move "back to civilization" should at least support his arguments a little more. Whether we like it or not, farming is a VITAL part of the american economy. The people who farm in this day and age are not wealthy individuals. As a rule they cannot afford complicated high speed cellular bandwith and certainly not electricity and phone service if the government lifted its regulation. Suggesting that they should just move back to the cities to get these necessities would have dire consequences to our economy. Is it worth paying an extra $.02 per month on your phone bill so some country bumpkin can have electricity? Or would you rather he moved into the city and brought milk prices up to those comparable with liquor. The same thing would happen to the price of bread, cereal, anything with soy in it and most vegetables. I personally would rather subsidize the electricity and not pay later at the grocery store, wouldn't you?
I don't see anything out-of-the-ordinary about that. Life involves choices, and we adapt to scarcity as best we can. Life doesn't get any better when the government picks favorites and grants them special privileges
Actually, it does. Ask anyone who benefitted from the rural phone service subsisdies. It's three dollars on my phone bill. It's the ability for them to call an ambulence. Do the math.
You still didn't answer my question. Without the redistribution of wealth, how do you expect the poor to obtain an education?
Your ability to participate in the economy and to access public services is not hampered by not having pizza delivery.
It is by not having a telephone, and will be even more so in the coming years by not having net access.
Though the situation is a bit different with net access, because the telephone infrastructure is already there. But originaly, it was either subsidize rural areas, or they don't get telephone. The cost was such that it would have been more profitable to ignore them.
Of course, even now, my grandmother lives 30 minutes away from the suburbs, and still can't get cable TV, though she could easily afford it, as she is already using DirectTV. Everyone says wireless internet will solve this problem, but I haven't seen anything real yet.
I wonder, did you receive a public education? It is effectivly income redistribution. I wonder how you'd feel about income redistribution when the welfare state quadruples in size, because education is no longer available to the poor.
I agree with you up to point 6.
6. The only other regulation we need is guaranteed low-cost access for anyone, like basic telephone service. No matter where they live in rural or remote areas. Tax the high-speed access people for this. Yeah, it's taxes. Deal with it.
Saying this is like saying, "I live in a remote part of America. There is no pizza place that will deliver to me. So tax the people that live in highly populated ares that have many pizza delivery options so I can have pizza delivery too."
I have a DSL line into my apartment. I pay more than a dialup line because I have more bandwith. I am paying more for more. I shouldn't have to pay more (for more) and more (taxes so someone remote can have it too). That is the Robin Hood mentatility. Rob from the rich to give to the poor. That is socalist to the extreme. Kinda like America's tax system.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
In addition, there is the fact that the net taxation schemes being pushed by various local politicians are simply ways for them to get their hands into the pockets of distant consumers who don't use any of their services and can't vote them out of office.
What was that line I remember from history class....? Oh, yeah: "No Taxation Without Representation".
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Do you want the US goverment to get involved with Microsoft? What about the MCIWorldCom/Sprint Merger? I know that the European agencies are giving it a look but the US scrutiny helps. Take a look at how much of the backbone MCIWorldCom owns without Sprint. It is a bit scary. I for one want someone watching them. Heck, I want a lot of big powers watching them.
Capitalism works best when no one is winning. Once a company starts to win too much, only stupidity, bad luck, or regulation will slow them. How else can competition be enforced?
If the net had not taken hold in the US, it would not be what it is today. That's just a plain fact. A lot of the resources that went into the net (software, hardware) came from US companies. Many of the sites and companies that have driven the net are based in the US. The net is international and the time will come when the US doesn't matter but that time isn't here yet.
SiliconValley and Redmond alone have a ton of power over the entire internet. The actions of large US companies can have an international reach. For example, Cisco, with its 85% market share, could begin to abuse that power. It would most likly be the DoJ that stops them. US goverment regulations matter internationaly when they effect US companies of the size of Microsoft and Cisco. This is true for any country with companies of this size. Japanese law can have a large effect through a company like Sony.
As for Universities and new technologies...they are great places to start new technologies but it takes a business to make real use of them. The internet exploded when companies started making money off of it. Most people have internet access only because some ISP thought it could make money by selling it to them.
I don't know what the laws are in your neck of the woods for cable access but around here it is a local monopoly. I have two choice when it comes to cable tv: none or the one company in my area. To make matters worse, the larger area around Philadelphia, PA, USA contains only a few cable companies that are all connected to AT&T in some way. Take a guess what cable internet provider I have to choose: Exite@Home. I can't shop around for competition because there isn't any. There is no real solution to this without some form of government regulation. If there is one, let me know because I do feel that regulation is costly weapon and one that is a last resort. I just don't see another solution to this problem.
-- soldack
"You are one spoiled bastard if you think TV is a right. It's a toy, 'kay?"
I think that the major forms of communication (Print, Phone, Radio, TV, Internet) need to be protected by the goverment. Information is power and whoever controls that information has all the power. I don't want any one capitalist company to have that kind of power. I don't want a single goverment agency to be the gods of information either but we need some sort of watchdog group to keep on eye on things. This group needs some real power to keep things safe for the consumer. I think that orgs like the FCC and DoJ are needed but they are not good enough. I don't know what a better solution would be but I feel that these groups are much better than nothing at all.
Without their protection, costs would rise and choice would fall.
-- soldack
This goes to the heart of the DoJ case in my mind. You can draw many connections between AT&T before the split and Microsoft now. AT&T controlled the network and crushed innovation that came from the outside. Microsoft does the same.
There is a problem with uncontrolled capitalism. It works very well when no single entity is too good at it. It fails when an entity like MS or AT&T becomes too good at the game. This is where the governement must come in and "level the playing ground" through regulation. It is the only solution to keep things competitive.
Professional sports has known this for sometime. The teams that did the worst the previous year usually get some sort of compensation, usually first crack at new young talent. Now compare these new players to intellectual property in the tech. world. Some pro sports have spending limits so that the richest teams can not automatically become the best. This works very well in the NFL and the NHL and MLB really need to take a look at it.
This leads to one solution that many people ignore in favor of sexier plans like a break up or open sourcing the OS. Scott McNeally has suggested that MS be banned from purchasing any intellectual property for five years. This would force MS to rely on their on development. They could spend as much as they want but they have to come from inside. If this had been law five years ago, much of MS's software would either not exist or look drastically different. For example, what is now known as Exchange was purchased and then modified. MS literally purchased their way into dominance in two major areas with HotMail and WebTV.
Would Cisco have dethroned MS as the biggest company (in terms of market capitalization) without all of their purchases? WorldCom was just a business long distance telephone provider before their spending spree gave them control over half the Internet backbone without including Sprint's network which will soon be added. What will stop the recently formed ExxonMobil from becoming StandardOil again?
Regulation is the only way that government can do its job of keeping things competitive. If that means more taxes to pay for the expesive regulation, so be it. I know that I will get value for those dollars through increased competition. If those tax dollars buy me the next innovation that would have been otherwise crushed then I think that it was money well spent.
-- soldack
I dont't think so. At least not yet. For a moment, forget the Internet. Why is it that I can choose almost everything in my life but I can't choose something as simple and basic as where I get my MTV? I can choose where the electricity, the power for my TV comes from (I live in PA, USA) but I can't choose where the shows, the data come from? That is wrong. I think this type of control is why it took so long for innovations to come to cable. My cable system is about the same as it was in the mid 80s. I have a few more channels and a wireless remote. Wow. I still have to pay whatever the cable company asks unless the government controls them. If I owned a cable company, I wouldn't change a thing. Why bother making it faster, better, and cheaper? Where are your customers going to go?
You may say that cable is a luxury and if you don't like it use some of the alternatives. Most of these alternatives are either too limiting (good old rabbit ears), too expensive (massive dish), or owned and priced by the same cable companies (small dish). I really don't think that cable is a luxury any more than the Internet is. There are many forms of important information only available through cable. CSPAN converage, for example. Several channels (Discovery, TLC, A&E, Bravo, etc.) offer high quality educational and artistic content.
As for the company's investments; they will still make money off of them. Forcing AT&T (these guys again?) to open up their cable lines does not mean opening them up for free. It just means that AT&T must allow others to pay to use them. They can and would still make tons of money through there investment. They will also make money by increasing the power and popularity of the format. For example, some say IBM should have protected the PC like Apple did with Mac. IBM's chunk of the PC pie is bigger than Apple's whole Mac pie.
-- soldack
Obviously the products that farmers market are in demand. Reduce the supply and you're very right that prices for those products will skyrocket! Lots of this money will go back to the remaining farmers. Now if a whole area is full of rich farmers, it would be very profitable to sell internet service to them at a higher rate, so ISP's would move into the area. In the meantime, other potential farmers would see all the dough that can be made in the industry, so they move to the country and produce. Their production lowers the price of food products. Now the price of foodstuff is back to normal, and ISP's exist in the country. The market at work.
The poor farmers who moved away because they couldn't afford the utilities would get bought our by large corporations with the ability to pay the utility costs and the clout to raise prices of basic food stuffs. Then, when the utility companies move in, and the food industry is very profitable and entrepreneurs want back into the market, they can't, cause the big mega-corps will kill them before they even get started. The market at work.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
All hail corporate power!
All hail corporate efficiency (particularly big corps)!
All hail the death of the evil, evil, small entrepreneur with his evil, evil, new ideas!
:-)
I guess I just don't share your enthusiasm over so-called "corporate efficiency".
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
Taxation may be "inevitable" and a fact of life BUT... I pay taxes out of my paycheck to federal, state, local, and social security. Then, anything I buy has a 5.75% sales tax on it. Then, if I owned a house, I'd have to pay property tax. I have to pay to have my car registered in my state. Any gas, alcohol, or cigarettes I buy would have an additional tax. The companies that make the products that I buy pay lots of taxes. We still pay taxes to fund wars from 1899. What the hell do they need a NEW tax for, when they have plenty of money with the taxes we're already giving them?? (30-40% of gross salary including the non income taxes) And you know, if a tax goes on the books, it NEVER comes off, even when deemed to be a temporary one. Take some of the old "temporary" taxes off and I might be ok with an internet sales tax.
It's important to point out that internet companies are already taxed. They pay corporate taxes, property taxes (assuming they have a location), payroll taxes, state income and local income taxes, and a lot of other little taxes. They don't exist in a tax-free zone. So to say "They need to pay taxes to pave the roads and pay the cops" is fatuous.
As an aside, keep in mind the percentage of GNP going to the US government has never been higher in peacetime. And almost every state is rolling in budget surpluses. America is hardly undertaxed.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
He didn't say zero taxation. He said no internet taxation. America has an absolute shitload of taxes on everything already. Your roads, schools, jails, courts and looney bins aren't going anywhere unless somehow all income and property taxes are somehow repealed.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
1/3/5/6 (taxes are inevitable). First, singling out the internet for taxation is not inevitable. That is not to say that thousands of people are out there working very hard to tax the internet-- after all, they have dozens top-down social engineering proposals to create, and that costs money. If that means killing a few startups, well, they're just corporations. Not like they employ people or anything. Or maybe you work for one of the maybe three startups which are turning tremendous profits.
By definition, regulation means taking a decision from people and placing it in the realm of government. Most people who want regulation say "People are making evil and/or stupid decisions, so if we regulate, then I make them for you." The reality goes like this: "I don't like the decisions everyone else is making, so I'll put it to a vote, and two years later I have to do it their way, too."
If we're serious about openness, we should remember that the only reason that so many startups are around is that they aren't getting killed by a death of a thousand cuts from regulations and taxes. If you aren't, you can tell everyone that you want your way and that everyone should 'stop whining'... Even Microsoft was a garage operation once-- killing the internet's growth is a simple matter of a form here and a 'minor' tax there. They add up to kill industries.
We also need guarantees that when we order DSL or Cable Modems, they'll be installed in 10 working days (or less), and that outages are fixed promptly. Beyond that, the government should butt out.
Beyond what? Every conceivable regulation? You're hurting the people you are claiming to help. Companies are giving computers away for free! ISPs are fixing stuff-- maybe not as fast as you like, but that's why we have competition. Every one of your suggestions for a regulation is adding another tiny cost to the price of doing business on the internet. And this isn't even stuff like privacy legislation-- you're suggesting a law to ban the everyday annoyances of life. Well, if it means that much to you, pay a higher cost for 24hr repairs. Just because there is a law that makes 'them' fix it on your schedule (and incidentally, outlaws cheap services for people who don't need extra features) doesn't reduce the cost of that service. Cheap internet is creating itself-- putting it on a government timetable will make it take more time, not less, and will make the internet that much less interesting when it gets to universal access.
What bothered me so much about this post is that the article was really good, and made me rethink many of my opinions. Then, this response came up, and I remembered why I think the way I do on this. Here's my laundry list:
The Open Source business model is enforced by contracts, not laws. If Open Source wasn't more palatable to the consumer, more stable and more efficient than Closed Source as a development model, it wouldn't exist.
Regulations inherently force people to do things that they wouldn't do otherwise. Sometimes this is good (ie laws which protect people's rights, laws which keep the market open, etc.) More often, it is tinkering by people who know the One True Way to do something, and have to resort to force to make people do it. Just because someone has to do something won't make it cheaper or more efficient. In fact, usually, the regulation specifies how to do something, because that is easier to enforce. Then you kill innovation by making technology a political question rather than a technical one.
Censorware: there is nothing wrong with censorware as long as you aren't forced to use it by law. And usually, you aren't. If you use taxpayer-funded datalines, you have to deal with taxpayer-voted filters. Fair is fair. The problem is when companies which produce filterware don't reveal their block lists and are therefore making stupid stupid misjudgements-- without letting communities know just what they are blocking!
'Line-Ucks'. I am not trolling-- hear me out! I used Linux back when noone knew how to pronounce it. I remember user groups arguing constantly over the issue. I still defiantly pronounce it with the long I. Why? Well: "I am Leeenoos Torvalds and I pronounce Leeeenoooks Leeenooks." One listen, then all the L'nux people declared victory and went home. I still don't buy it, even if all sane people disagree.
Anyway, long answer, but the point is this: open standards and open networks are good statements of principle. But we have to be very careful that we don't let the 'mandatory 10 day installation by Presidential Proclamation' people regulate the liberty out of the internet.
oh, and speaking of regulation: End the TLD Tyranny!
It isn't, and that's quite possibly the strongest force for common sense legislation.
Maybe he should approach this by ensuring US Govt. sees a visible loss of compeitiveness & profit to the US economy from the lack of ISP choice over broadband?
If his arguments were phrased to start with "The UK, Germany and Japan will have an economic advantage over us if they have end-to-end and we don't, because..." I'm sure the legislators will listen up!
- Andy R.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
PLAN 14
In order to have some semblance of order, we need a group of people who are knowledgeable, yet we woudl like them to be fairly impressionable so they don't try to take too much power. So I propose that we instate the 140 people who are 14 years old. Reasons why this would be a good plan:
1) You are only 14 for a year, so you can't become a career internet dictator.
2) They are smart enough to get some stuff accomplished on the computers, but they will effectively not have a voice out side of that realm.
3) If they get out of hand, take away their allowance and sedn them to bed early. Ground them if necessary.
4) Great way to keep kids from doing drugs. Which would you rather do, be supreme internet dictator for a year, or do drugs?
5) Teaches the children leadership the good ol' fashion way: throw 'em in the water, and say sink or swim.
If AT&T hadn't been a government sanctioned and protected monopoly in the first place, it wouldn't have needed regulations to force it to do things that the free market would have forced it to do.
Open Source licenses (GPL, etc) secure rights for the creators of the source. Lessig wants to trample on the exact same rights if they belong to companies investing $billions in new infrastructure.
Yes, sometimes those companies will do boneheaded things (blocking port 80, etc). But cable vs. DSL vs. wireless vs. (soon) satellite competition is the way to straighten those things out, not by getting Big Brother involved. (And if Big Brother wasn't so greedy with the spectrum auctions and heavy-handed in its regulations we'd have a lot more wireless options...)
Technically, I don't see how this tax scheme is possible to implement short of some central internet authority. But if I'm taxed on the internet, I want to see benefits on the internet from that.
Just my two bits worth...
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
OK, let's break it down:
...
1. Taxation is inevitable. Deal with it.
2. Regulation of Internet Access is Good. We need Open Competition between providers. We don't need restrictions on this. We also need guarantees that when we order DSL or Cable Modems, they'll be installed in 10 working days (or less), and that outages are fixed promptly. Beyond that, the government should butt out. [note - I own shares in AT&T, Cisco, AOL, Cox, a bunch more - and I'm hurting my profit picture by saying this]
3. Taxation is still inevitable. Stop whining.
4. Censorship is Bad. Information to permit consumers to know which spam or web site is X-rated or has violent images is ok, but not if Congress decides which is which. Multiple rating services should be permitted, so consumers can choose which (if any) they wish to use. I'm going to choose one for my son that bans violence and sex with violence (and until he's older, sex). And maybe right-wing loonies.
5. The Internet Will Be Taxed. Get a life
6. The only other regulation we need is guaranteed low-cost access for anyone, like basic telephone service. No matter where they live in rural or remote areas. Tax the high-speed access people for this. Yeah, it's taxes. Deal with it.
Will in Seattle
Well you can't have pizza delivery without a telephone. Just try it, I dare you.
"but there are also other means of communication than a phone."
Hey YOU can use tin cans and string, I'll keep my telephone. Maybe carrier pigeon. Telegram.
See my point? What other means of communication are there? Only ancient ones that no one uses anymore. Email? Well you need phone lines (or at least cable lines) for that.
If you live way out in the boonies, and you fall and can't get up, how are you going to get an ambulance? I guess you're NOT unless you have a phone. We may not have a RIGHT to be GIVEN a phone, but we certainly have a right to get one if we want one. Which is why they do lay lines for people in Nowheresville and don't charge them more. That's why local phone is a government regulated monopoly (right now, in most areas).
There is no other good alternative means of communication other than the telephone, whereas with pizza, you can go out and grow a tomato garden or something.
Net access hasn't grown to the point yet that phone service has. Someday it probably will.
Education:
The thing about this is that people who are poor generally don't have the time on their hands to home school children, unless they're on welfare. And if you're on welfare, how much education do you have? Generally not enough, otherwise you'd have a skilled labor job. It's a catch 22. This is why if education is no longer available to the poor, that would be a BAD thing... the poor wouldn't have the opportunity to become more educated and have the potential to get a good job.
I suspect over the next ten years or so we'll see the Net, or its successor(s), subjected to the same sort of backward-looking defensive strategies that have been involved in DVD/ebook-style "copyright protection". Right now the Internet doesn't have the right kind of infrastructure to, for instance, restrict access by geography (you can sort of do it by reverse DNS lookups, but that doesn't really work well) so that something illegal in Germany can't be downloaded to or routed through Germany. But there's no reason you couldn't do that in a future "next generation" Internet, given sufficient government funding.
I don't want this to be the case, but I suspect that the Internet we've known, with its great freedom (based on technological limitations, for the most part), is a temporary thing. When it's replaced, the governments of the world will be paying a lot more attention than they did last time, and the resulting network will be quite different in consequence.
I've heard of the principle of end-to-end in the design of the Internet, but frankly, I'd forgotten it and I needed this piece to apply it to these very policy issues. I knew open access was good but couldn't articulate it as he has done. Now I won't forget it.
I see the pressure of the network provider at work in my wireless internet provider. Windows and Windows CE are supported products. I've had to call tech support twice in the last few days and pretend that I used Windows and their software (which I've never actually seen in operation) to access the wireless network. Now they want everyone to get a proprietary, network-compression protocol that isn't available for Linux. I may not be able to keep a service that I've used for almost a year.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Lessig's main point is that he feels that there should be regulation concerning the emergining broadband technologies so that there is "free access" for all. Not free as in money, mind you, but freedom to pick an ISP reguardless of who developed the infrastructure. You need to assume if we allow certain companies to develop these networks, they'll be extremely protective of their infrastructure. I highly doubt that TimeWarner or Adelphia or whomever will be willingly inviting other ISPs to use their cables and routers and what have you, unless there is some sort of motive--and the motive here is regulation. And, HOW ELSE WILL YOU MOTIVATE THESE COMPANIES TO KEEP THE NETWORK FREE OF PROPRIETARY STANDARDS?
As for those of you who are reading this outside of the US, the arguement is for regulating ACCESS TO THE NETWORK IN THE US.
But in the end, it comes down to this, there is work being done in Washington to regulate FREE ACCESS to the Internet and yeah, it will affect you sooner or later. Wether you choose to sit behind a screen all day is your business, but don't allow your misconceptions to color your view of the world. You might even want to actually pay attention to the Sunday news shows once in a while.
This is another view of the world.
As a whole, Lawrence Gets It(tm). he's thoughtful, and has the proper wide view on alot of stuff, particularly regulation of the (US-portion) Internet.
Cable companies should most certainly be forced to provide Open Access. They've got a government-sanctioned monopoly, and are in (for all practical purposes) the same position that your local ILEC (nee RBOC) is in. We'd all be very upset if PacBell/BellSouth/BellAtlantic/et al. suddenly were allowed to shut off ISP access to anyone but their own ISP, wouldn't we? It's the same boat here.
However, in the longer term, I advocate something that not alot of people either consider (or may disagree with). I advocate the Nationalization of the Local Data Infrastructure. That is, just like you have the local Road Dept, there should be a local Data Dept. (Note, I think that the larger-scale infrastructure is doing just fine as it is, it's just the local data link that needs help.)
Now, before you all yell Commie!, thing about this. The big fight right now is over the last mile access - the CO to house, or curb to neighborhood. With the convergence of TV, phone, and data, it really makes no sense (from anyone's economic point of view) to have 4 or 5 companies maintaining different information infrastructures, with all the costs associated with them. Info lines are now as critical as roads, and realistically, we should have someone dedicated to that.
What I'd like to see is that each Municipality take over the last mile work, and essentially be fully responsible (and SOLELY responsible) for providing physical connectivity to each household. Then at the local CO, you can anyone to put in lines to their company to provide access of any kind they want. Open Access for Everyone, with no monopoly on any part of the process. Part of your taxes would pay for this Department, and you'd have direct feedback on how this was spent (vs. Do you really think SuperMegaCorp is that responsive to your community needs? view the spotty DSL/cable rollouts).
The big snag on this is that this really requires fibre to the house. It'll cost alot, but it'll be worth it to say the least. And having local control over the infrastructure means you can probably get better response than having it controlled by SuperMegaCorp#1.
Also, to everyone who complains about subsidizing rural areas: GROW UP! Think beyond the end of your nose, and quit being selfish. Having Universal Telephone service changed this country, as did complete Electrification, both of which were paid for by slightly taxing high-density areas to allow for the installation and maintenance of rural areas. Providing these services to rural areas is what allowed huge gains in farm productivity, so all you city-dwellers, remember who feeds you.
Just some thoughts!
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
The Author seems to think that the concept of regulation is of one type only - government taking care of the little guy (you and me), protecting us from Big Corporations.
You must have been reading a different article, check your link.
The article being discussed has entire paragraphs dedicated to three different kinds of regulations and how they have affected innovation.
In fact, his article was directed at people like YOU -- who hear the word "regulation" and immediately start channeling Ayn Rand. Re-read and pay attention to the parts where he says regulation DOES NOT MEAN BIG GOVERNMENT "taking care of the little guy" as you put it.
The 20 somethings that he mentions in the beginning of the article bring up the slippery-slope argument, that if you start regulating broad-band, satellites, and other networks will go next...This is a good point - one that he doesn't grasp
He grasps it more effectively than most folks here. Tell me, were you complaining about the "regulation" that prevented phone companies from charging more for data than voice? That's exactly what Lessig is speaking of when he refers to phone companies that would have kept the internet stillborn.
The phone companies wanted to protect their lucrative ISDN and T1 lines, so they were quite upset at the idea of people sending data over a regular voice line. They wanted to charge more (not that it cost them any more to send data than voice) and "big government regulators" said they were being idiots. Without that regulation the internet would still be a university toy and we'd still be dialing onto BBSes and downloading messages for offline reading.
Lessig wrote this article to educate those 20-somethings (like you) who seem to think all these toys sprang from nowhere and were inevitable. "Deregulation" is not deregulation at all, it is a different kind of regulation. And of course government (legal) regulations are only a THIRD of what he's talking about...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
About five minutes into the session, two staffers came in late. And after about a minute more of my presentation, one of the latecomers had heard enough. Here I was, he objected, arguing that the government should "begin regulating the Internet." Where was the limit? Where would I draw the line? Today I was calling for the regulation of broadband cable; should we also regulate broadband wireless? And if wireless, then satellite too? Was there any stopping this "new" regulation of cyberspace? Was I proposing that we regulate Linux (or "Line-Ucks," as he mispronounced it) because it might become as popular as Windows? </quote>
Sounds like that staffer was your normal
Had to smile...
- "Yeah man, I tell ya what, man...That dang ol' Internet, man...You just go one there and point and click...Talk about
This whole "regulation is evil" is remarkably similar to the arguments I've heard from pro-M$ people against DoJ sanctions.
... um ... just use my cell for everything) choices. Because MediaOne only has RoadRunner, and no one else can provide over that line, I would have been forced to use a service that blocked most of the useful port numbers, and made horrible restrictions on content. (Yes, they do... there are things they mention in the contract that make me sick) Fortunately, DSL was also an option, and with competition, they couldn't afford to pull that sort of thing. Too bad some areas only have cable, with phone lines that can't sustain DSL, or cable providers would go out of business. And that would be just fine by me. If PCs had not been M$ only for so long (like cable lines are service-choiceless), they would never have become big enough to abuse their monopoly the way they have. The same goes for connectivity. If it requires government regulation, so be it. There are times when a less profit motivated party must exert some control, for the good of the consumer, and for the long term good of all.
Right now, there is a large battle going on between DSL providers, Broadband Cable providers, and dialup networks. DSL is winning by a huge margin, primarilly because it is regulated for open access. I had an option of getting Cable from MediaOne (LA area cable service) at discount, because my building provides the basic cable service, or one of about ten DSL companies that could hook it up on my line. I have to say, it was less painful than my local phone service (get reamed by PacBell or
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
Lessig is a very smart guy and very capable of expressing himself. He is worth reading.
The summary of his article (IMHO):
(1) There ain't no such thing as "no regulation". Regulation is not just laws, but also (social) norms and technological feasability. Realtime Blackhole List is regulation. Setting the router to reject obviously spoofed packets is regulation. Not-building pro-surveillance features into 'net protocols is also regulation ('cause it effectively regulates ability to do surveillance).
(2) Regulation is not necessarily bad, especially in a monopolistic or near-monopolistic situation. If they could, don't you think Baby Bells would have started to charge you $9.99 per minute for data calls to other ISPs and $0.09 per minute for calls to its own ISP? They couldn't because of regulation. The point is: sometimes regulation leads to more choice, not less. And more choice is good.
(3) One of the reasons for the 'net's success is that the network is dumb. All it does is shuffle IP packets. All the intelligence resides at ends, with the users. This may seem natural to Slashdotters, but other ways are certainly possible and phone companies, for example, would much rather have an "intelligent" network (which provides services that they can charge for) than a dumb commodity network. See also George Gilder and his ideas about "dark fiber".
Lessig argues that the dumbness of the network was a major factor in the success of the Internet (in particular, it avoided specializing the network for some particular use). His point is that we should do the same with broadband: keep the network dumb and freely accessible at the ends. If necessary, regulate to keep it that way.
I am not a big fan of regulation at all, and I certainly trust the government much less than Lessig does, but his arguments are certainly food for thought.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Nothing in that article had anything to do with taxation.
Here's my summary of the article:
His point: geeks are using the rhetoric wrong, and it will burn them in the halls of government.
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-