On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Harry Penner wrote:

> Yes, I reflexively distrust govt.  Maybe you don't.  I guess I should be 
> happy to just agree to disagree on that, as long as we can both agree 
> that the questions should be asked.  Which I think we do (below).

Sure, I don't work by reflex.  I'm more thoughtful about it.


>> I read a bunch of the stuff on this list today and a lot of it wasn't 
>> very impressive but I did like what Tony Yarusso wrote.  I liked it so 
>> much that I'm appending it below.  What's wrong with what Tony is 
>> saying?
>
> I like what he said too.  Let's grant his framing of the problem for a 
> minute for the sake of argument: the providers want to regulate 
> [traffic], and the govt wants to stop that regulation.  The problem, for 
> me, is that in order for the government to stop that regulation it has 
> to put in regulation [of provider behavior] of its own.  Seems to me 
> that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to just "cancel out" 
> unwanted behavior without ripple effects.

I'd have to see the proposal.  There are always ripple effects, in a 
sense, but they might be good ripple effects.  For example, a net 
neutrality regulation might give the big telcos less reason to try to buy 
up all the providers and create a massive internet conglomerate that 
controls what we see and manipulates the government through lobbying and 
massive campaign contributions.


> If you grant that, then the govt doesn't just cancel out the providers' 
> regulation [of traffic]; it introduces regulation of its own.  So 
> although I think Tony's model is certainly a desirable one I don't think 
> it's an attainable one, or at very least least not easily attainable.

Well, that isn't much of an argument -- you don't think it's attainable. 
So what?  If you were a top expert and a business professor with a law 
degree who specialized in internet business, then I'd care about your 
unsupported opinion, but only a little bit.  I need more facts and 
information.


> Like you said, we don't have that regulatory language in front of us to 
> evaluate, but it just seems very likely to me that whatever the govt 
> ends up putting in place to regulate the providers' behavior will have 
> unforeseen negative effects.  Even if we define the problem narrowly 
> enough to only stop ISPs from blocking access to content, can that come 
> back to bite us? Will that stop ISPs from providing a value-add that 
> might block customers' access to phishing or malware sites?  What's 
> going to be considered an ISP -- will a "good guy" who blocks access to 
> all kinds of sites, such as OpenDNS, be affected?  (And if not, what's 
> to stop ISPs from just implementing their own independent OpenDNS-alike 
> to get around the rule, and then default to it as their DNS provider?) 
> What protocols will be affected -- will it prevent ISPs from blocking 
> direct SMTP sends from end-users to non-ISP mail servers (which I don't 
> particularly like, but supposedly cuts down on automated spam)?
>
> I think we're in agreement that all these questions have to be asked, 
> but we might be in disagreement as to whether the desired result can be 
> gained cleanly (or at all) using the govt intervention method.  Like I 
> said, I'll settle for just agreeing to disagree on that, as long as we 
> can both agree that the questions should be asked, so that everybody's 
> got their eyes open going into it.  Which I think we do.  Peace.

Exactly -- we have to take a careful look at the details of any proposed 
regulatory solution and see what the expert arguments are on all sides. 
I always like to hear what Stallman thinks, for one, and I'm sure he'll 
have a lot to say about any proposal.  He's big into freedom, like me and 
you.

Mike