A note on Next week's vote at the FCC (I will post other points of view if well stated djf)

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>
> Date: October 15, 2009 11:41:41 PDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] A note on Next week's vote at the FCC (I will post  
> other points of view if well stated djf)
> Reply-To: karl () cavebear com

> On 10/15/2009 11:18 AM, David Farber wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > *From: *"Gross, David"
> > *Date: *October 15, 2009 8:02:06 AM PDT
> > *To: *dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net>
> > *Subject: **A New Post*
> >
> > Next week the Federal Communications Commission will vote on a  
> > proposal
> > to consider establishing binding "net neutrality" regulations on
> > companies providing Internet services. Breaking with the long  
> > tradition
> > of the Clinton and Bush Administrations of ensuring that governments
> > around the world do not "Regulate the Net"...
>
> Really?  The Clinton administration's Dep't of Commerce initiated  
> and empowered ICANN, a very heavy-handed economic and business  
> regulatory body that is costing the community of internet users  
> roughly a billion dollars $USD every year in highly inflated,  
> monopoly-rent, charges for domain names.  The US Gov't supported  
> ICANN has made the domain name system a modern form of a medieval  
> trade guild that sets prices, terms of sale, minimum price  
> components, and chooses who may and who may not become a vendor in  
> the marketplace.  On top of that the US Gov't supported ICANN  
> imposes a worldwide privacy-busting body of regulations and a  
> trademark uber-alles regime of private, but worldwide, law.
>
> The argument for ICANN was "technical stability".  But, as we saw  
> with the disappearance of an entry country (Sweden) from the domain  
> name system, ICANN long ago abandoned the field of internet  
> stability to graze in the greener (as in the green of dollars)  
> fields of business and economic regulation of the net.
>
> I agree that the FCC's net neutrality endeavors might cause some  
> troubles, but the idea that such action by the FCC would be contrary  
> to some US policy against regulation of the internet is contradicted  
> by the existence of the ICANN, a stepchild of the US Dep't of  
> Commerce.
>
>    --karl--



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com