4 ms·

I don't think an intelligent person would believe that once a regulated Internet were in place that there is a high probability of it changing either. Now, if i

I don't think an intelligent person would believe that once a regulated Internet were in place that there is a high probability of it changing either. Now, if it is regulated properly, that's a feature, not a bug, but that's a big if. I'm certainly not one of those individuals who believe that any regulation is bad regulation, but there is a not-insignificant chance that regulating the nascent wireless space before it has truly matured will result in bad regulation. And once bad regulation is in place, it can be very difficult to change in a meaningful way. It seems to me that there is danger in both approaches: an entrenched base of huge corporations pushing an unregulated tiered wireless internet is a bad future. Likewise, an improperly regulated wireless internet is an equally bad scenario. As I understand it, this deal does not sacrifice a neutral wireless internet for a neutral wired one, it merely eschews applying neutrality rules to the wireless internet while proposing neutrality rules for the wired one. Which is very different from the assertion that this deal puts a tiered wireless internet in place. Which, given its nascent status, seems like the most prudent approach.

jshen 16y ago
In American history it's been far easier to deregulate than it has been to regulate. The telecoms themselves have seen massive deregulation in the past few decades. I also fail to see how packet parity can be bad.
- icarus_drowning 16y ago
  Regulation is a form of power for the government. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but government and corporations certainly share a desire to be as powerful as possible. Giving either power should thus be a carefully considered move. In some instances, it makes sense. In some it doesn't. But one can be sure that, either way, the entrenched institutions will not willingly give up any power granted to them. I think the most salient factor here is that regulation requires good information on how that industry/space works. I don't think its questionable that we are not sure what future the wireless/mobile internet holds, only that it big. Regulating it properly right now seems like a dubious proposition-- either through the traditional kind of government regulation or through the "self-regulation" of large corporations, who will naturally shape such self-regulation to their own advantage.

jshen 16y ago

In American history it's been far easier to deregulate than it has been to regulate. The telecoms themselves have seen massive deregulation in the past few decades. I also fail to see how packet parity can be bad.

icarus_drowning 16y ago
Regulation is a form of power for the government. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but government and corporations certainly share a desire to be as powerful as possible. Giving either power should thus be a carefully considered move. In some instances, it makes sense. In some it doesn't. But one can be sure that, either way, the entrenched institutions will not willingly give up any power granted to them. I think the most salient factor here is that regulation requires good information on how that industry/space works. I don't think its questionable that we are not sure what future the wireless/mobile internet holds, only that it big. Regulating it properly right now seems like a dubious proposition-- either through the traditional kind of government regulation or through the "self-regulation" of large corporations, who will naturally shape such self-regulation to their own advantage.