5 ms·

That would attract lots of new solutions from very savvy and deep-pocketed challengers, like Google, Apple, and other strategic investors. And if it doesn't? H

That would attract lots of new solutions from very savvy and deep-pocketed challengers, like Google, Apple, and other strategic investors. And if it doesn't? How long do we wait?

gojomo 12y ago
Wait until measurable abuses actually exist, and persist for year or two – enough time to understand – rather than acting on paranoid fantasies (like the "cable tiers" mockup) that might never materialize. For example, what if ISPs roll out traffic-preferences-for-pay... but the base bandwidth available to customers, and sites that don't opt to pay for preference, also keeps improving, on a price/performance basis? Would that still be an emergency requiring novel nationwide regulation? And wouldn't we learn something if some local markets showed abuse or lagging price/performance, while others thrived? Couldn't we, and especially the lagging jurisdictions, then do the minimal targeted reforms to improve results based on actual history, rather than a theoretical "neutral net" ideal? Note that unlike the shared broadcast airwaves, the economic case for wires being a 'commons' needing public management is weak. There's already at least 3 sets of wires running to most structures – electricity, phones, and cable – and more could be added if those aren't satisfying the customers. And even electricity – far more foundational than internet – is regulated in a diverse manner locally, not nationally. Wait and see and let localities and businesses experiment is just fine - it's what got us to this point, after all, and the internet is doing just fine – albeit prone to occasional panic attacks: "Death of the Internet Predicted, Film At 11".
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Wait until measurable abuses actually exist Specific measurable abuses and the court rulings in the specific attempt to deal with them in the Comcast FCC action and subsequent litigation in 2007-2010 was one of the things which spurred the FCC to move network neutrality from a set of generalized objectives that it was seeking to preserve in it its other actions to a specific focus of dedicated, generally-applicable regulation. So been there, done that.

That would attract lots of new solutions from very savvy and deep-pocketed challengers, like Google, Apple, and other strategic investors. And if it doesn't? How long do we wait?

gojomo 12y ago

Wait until measurable abuses actually exist, and persist for year or two – enough time to understand – rather than acting on paranoid fantasies (like the "cable tiers" mockup) that might never materialize. For example, what if ISPs roll out traffic-preferences-for-pay... but the base bandwidth available to customers, and sites that don't opt to pay for preference, also keeps improving, on a price/performance basis? Would that still be an emergency requiring novel nationwide regulation? And wouldn't we learn something if some local markets showed abuse or lagging price/performance, while others thrived? Couldn't we, and especially the lagging jurisdictions, then do the minimal targeted reforms to improve results based on actual history, rather than a theoretical "neutral net" ideal? Note that unlike the shared broadcast airwaves, the economic case for wires being a 'commons' needing public management is weak. There's already at least 3 sets of wires running to most structures – electricity, phones, and cable – and more could be added if those aren't satisfying the customers. And even electricity – far more foundational than internet – is regulated in a diverse manner locally, not nationally. Wait and see and let localities and businesses experiment is just fine - it's what got us to this point, after all, and the internet is doing just fine – albeit prone to occasional panic attacks: "Death of the Internet Predicted, Film At 11".

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Wait until measurable abuses actually exist Specific measurable abuses and the court rulings in the specific attempt to deal with them in the Comcast FCC action and subsequent litigation in 2007-2010 was one of the things which spurred the FCC to move network neutrality from a set of generalized objectives that it was seeking to preserve in it its other actions to a specific focus of dedicated, generally-applicable regulation. So been there, done that.