Fwd: [IP] The Internet Can Save Itself From Ajit Pai. Just Not Here. -- Ajit Pai has the power to destroy the internet – but only in the US, not overseas

["Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Andrew Lippman <lip () media mit edu>
Date: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [IP] The Internet Can Save Itself From Ajit Pai. Just Not
Here. -- Ajit Pai has the power to destroy the internet – but only in the
US, not overseas
To: <dave () farber net>


Assar’s coments are in part right.  This decision will not destroy the
Internet instantly or universally, but it is a great step backward for what
has become a human right and is pretty clearly a public good.  And his
argument neglects the social interfaces we all use.  The danger is not in
the design of IP and TCP, it is in deep packet inspection that allows a
router to make decisions.  That can bring us back to the AOL days of a
walled garden or advance the carrier equivalent of what Facebook tried to
do in India:  provide a cheap pathway to Facebook with some possible escape
to the rest of the net.  Sacrificing openness the Internet on the altar of
big business will not make it cheaper *on the whole *or allow for any other
innovation other than the economic innovation of the carriers.  And it does
not send a good signal to the rest of the world about our feelings about
human rights.

Lots of these arguments in favor of the FCC decision rewrite history.  Yes,
it is true that the Internet flourished without Title II regulation, but
the FCC tried with the Open Internet Order and agreements to prevent
Comcast from discriminating among services.  The Verizon/FCC case that
removed a lot of the protections of the Open Internet Order led directly to
Title II regulation.  In other words, the Internet flourished both because
novel services got in under the wire of delivery control and while it was
the operative means while carriers fight tooth and nail to destroy it.

They have now (seemingly and likely temporarily) won that battle.  You
might well see some clever rate structures that deliver cable equivalent
services over wireless, like zero-rating.  But this is smoke and mirrors.
If the carriers are extracting monopoly rents for most-favored-service
status for some, you will be the one paying for that.  Personally, I would
happily pay this tax if it forced them to wire up everyone for free and
provide terminal equipment to those who couldn’t afford it.  Take the
public good part of public airwaves seriously.  But do you really think
this will happen?

Andy Lippman



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20171218195037:9E767CCC-E456-11E7-ACF7-B8A4592DA039
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com