Hi Harry, You assert that all regulation is designed to restrict choices. But, is that really true? Some regulation is designed to guarantee we have choices because without choice "free markets" devolve into abusive monopolies. I did ask for examples, but I wasn't clear enough. I wanted examples related to the topic of Net Neutrality that backed your position of reticence with respect to endorsing regulation enforcing net neutrality. *your reaction, for instance, was too quick to take the time to give examples or demonstrate any in-depth knowledge of the issue, which is exactly what you criticized me for -- rather than thinking it through.* I did criticize you, but here's the deal. You expressed an opinion and position first, but it was practically content-free. You framed your position with generalizations, not facts or chains of logic based on the issue of net neutrality at all. You were went straight to "free marketeering/anti-regulation" and didn't even suggest as to why that is relevant. I wasn't flaming your position, I was challenging you to give me something other than rhetoric to consider and think about in the context of Net Neutrality. I'm still waiting. Give me more to think about and consider and I'll think about it. If you're just afraid of big-government/regulation on principle - nothing less and nothing more - okay then. I get it. My understanding of Net Neutrality is that it preserves the separation of concerns between bandwidth providers and content providers. It means everyone's traffic between the content provider and my box is treated fairly, and that the service I'm consuming is not trumped by traffic from content providers with cozy deals with my bandwidth provider that I may not even be aware of. It also means that my bandwidth provider can't de-prioritize traffic from a competitor to one of their own services and force me to be vendor locked. That is to say - net neutrality preserves choice by preventing the people in control of distribution from deciding for me what my choices are going to be. Which is to say, I really don't understand the free-market/anti-regulation objection to net-neutrality. Bandwidth is a commodity. Bandwidth providers are utilities. What is the basis of your objection to net-neutrality other than general paranoia and/or dogma? That is what I was looking for (and expecting) from your first post. :) -Rob On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Harry Penner <hpenner at gmail.com> wrote: > Come on, Rob, let's keep things civil. We can disagree without calling > each other trolls. I'm making sweeping generalizations because although it > may seem like a small technical issue it's subject to the same basic laws of > governmental intervention as anything else. > > Of course regulation is a double-edged sword. Some helps keep us safe, and > some helps make us miserable. But all of it restricts our choices, because > that's what regulations are designed to DO. The market is free-for-all that > gives us choices. Regulation restricts providers of goods or services from > offering us some of those choices because we (loosely defined) think those > choices are bad enough that nobody should be allowed to make them. > > You asked for examples: New vehicles are required to have seat belts in > order to be sold to the public and be allowed on the roads. Sounds like a > reasonable regulation to me. On the other hand, we have regulations on > telecomm companies that make them go through all kinds of crazy govt > approvals and rigid pricing structures that when I worked in the telecomm > industry 11 years ago some smaller telcos would tell me that they couldn't > afford to offer DSL to their customers because they could only lose money on > it (not because customers wouldn't pay, but because they weren't allowed to > charge enough to recoup their costs). That may have changed by now, but I > doubt it since I have to use 3G at home because it's 2010 and Sprint still > hasn't put in a DSLAM in my area. Specific to the FCC, we've got the > restriction on obscenity on radio and TV. I personally think that's a good > reg (I have kids), but I know people who think we'd have better content if > we allowed freer speech on the airwaves. > > Nobody here is saying all regulation is bad. I'm saying it's a big clumsy > weapon that we should think very carefully about before using. Some people > seem to react quickly to the issue -- your reaction, for instance, was too > quick to take the time to give examples or demonstrate any in-depth > knowledge of the issue, which is exactly what you criticized me for -- > rather than thinking it through. > > If regulation is the answer, so be it, but as a fellow internet user who > will have to live with those regulations for a long time -- because most > regulations, no matter how poorly written, are hard to change or undo (think > DMCA) -- I'm asking you to think it through instead of calling people names. > > -Harry > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Robert Nesius <nesius at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Harry Penner <hpenner at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> At the risk of flames: the Internet as we know it has flourished in >>> large part because its original sponsor, the federal government, has >>> mostly left it alone. Why do we think adding government regulations >>> to it will make it better (or preserve the freedom we enjoy on it)? >>> Generally speaking, doesn't regulation take away freedom rather than >>> increasing it, by definition? I'm no futurist but it seems to me that >>> putting restrictions on the big guys is likely to affect us little >>> guys in some unforeseen but unpleasant way. >>> >>> Sorry if the above sounds trollish but I just think we should be >>> careful what we ask for. With companies you can usually vote with >>> your feet to try to change or avoid their bad behavior, but >>> regulations are usually universal and forever... And the regs will >>> surely by written by people not nearly as close to or as thoughtful >>> about the problem as we tclug'ers... >>> >>> Seems to me we ought to show up and tell the FCC to keep their paws off >>> us. >>> >>> -Harry >>> >>> >> Harry, >> >> How about instead of making sweeping generalizations you make >> a case for your position with supporting arguments. Regulation >> is no less a double-edged sword than an absence of regulation. >> How does net-neutrality regulation harm us? How does the >> absence of net-neutrality regulation help us? Do you even >> properly understand the topic you are debating, and do you know >> for a fact the federal government mostly left the internet alone >> after funding its creation and development, or does it just seem >> that way to you for other reasons? >> >> I don't think you should apologize for your comments sounding >> trollish. I think you should apologize for making trollish comments. >> >> I can already see this thread spinning away into the land of >> rhetoric. >> >> -Rob >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20100819/8a287b73/attachment-0001.htm