Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)

Wayne E. Bouchard web at typo.org
Wed Nov 5 12:41:47 CST 2008


On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:59:09AM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> You're very welcome.  My previous career was as a broadcast chief operator.  Knowing 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 73, 74, and 101 was part of that job (and a part I do not miss).  Radio (both amateur and professional) used to be, prior to the late 1920's, an unregulated free-for-all similar to the current state of the Internet; but that proved to be unworkable, eventually producing the Communications Act of 1934, which established the Federal Communications Commission with real authority to regulate radio.

Yeah, and we're all just thrilled at how the FCC has conducted itself
over the past 20 years, aren't we? (Speaking as one who grew around
the technical side of broadcasting.) :-/

I'm undecided wether such regulation is a good thing or not. I agree
that the current state of affairs is ultimately unworkable but
government's role is to provide necessary restraints to protect the
ability of new competitors to enter into the market place and to
enable fair competition, not to regulate for the sake of
regulating. With yesterday's results, I do not believe this is quite
the right time to be persuing such actions since there is now a
worrisome imbalance in the system. See, thing is, if "tier 1" becomes
regulated, "tier 2" will almost certainly follow. Probably much more
open, but regulation will still follow. (Open doors are hard to
close.)

When you get right down to it, this discussion really sounds like
a request for something along the lines of Telecom '96. Not sure I
like that thought or not. I'm still undecided as to wether that was a
good or a bad thing but leaning towards good.

-Wayne


---
Wayne Bouchard
web at typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/





More information about the NANOG mailing list