more on Why the FCC should die

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

        From:     Bob2-19 () bobf frankston com
        Subject:        RE: [IP] Why the FCC should die
        Date:   June 10, 2004 5:27:50 PM EDT
        To:       dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com, dewayne () warpspeed com
        Cc:       mac () Wireless Com, declan () well com, dpreed () reed com

Of course I agree with Declan but he's being too accommodating to the
assumption that we need spectrum management. Isn't it about time we got 
past
the harmonic telegraph and the idea of assigning each orchestra a single
note?

At very least we should require that the Federal Speech Commission 
explain
why it must (as per the US first amendment) regulate communications
(meaning) now that we know that the bits do not have intrinsic meaning 
and
the Internet demonstrates that the scarcity of transport was caused by 
the
regulation of meaning.

My current sound bite is that the Internet is the result of the / 
between
TCP/IP. We now need put the slash in tele/communications to separate
transport from meaning.

While I want to go into far more detail, I'll keep this note short. 
What is
important is that the idea that the FSC is not just unnecessary but does
real harm become widely accepted. It seems that people (and 
commissioners)
would rather cling to their TiVos than risk opportunity.

Imagine a tele/communications world!

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/