Re: No One Is Going To Save You Fools

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Doug Humphrey <doug () joss com>
Date: December 23, 2009 11:08:46 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: No One Is Going To Save You Fools

just a passing (and likely incendiary) thought - the holy grail of
"innovation" may not be something that is linear across the lifetime
of the particular technology that is being addressed.

Let me state up front - my capitalist credentials are good - I start
companies, employ people, add value, make profit, etc. - well, I
did before I retired, but I am un-retiring so here we go again!
All said in case people think I am anti-capitalism or something....

BUT about innovation.... in the early stages of something (like
the internet) the unfettered ability to innovate is critical - the baby
CAN be snuffed out in its crib easily and it needs to be protected;
it will likely have a lot of enemies at some point in the trajectory
that WANT it dead.

In the later stages, as things become more established, and as
the technology becomes more "critical infrastructure" than "that
cool things that joe is working on" is it possible that the focus on
"innovation" becomes less important?  because the innovation
itself becomes less revolutionary and more evolutionary?

So, has the "internet" reached a point where it takes its place
alongside of water, power, sewer and beer as infrastructure?

And if so, is innovation STILL the number one concern in
establishing the environment for "the net"?

peace and prosperity!
doug humphrey







On Dec 23, 2009, at 6:04 AM, David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
> Date: December 23, 2009 12:15:10 AM EST
> To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Cc: jsq () quarterman org
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re: No One Is Going To Save You Fools
>
> At 07:43 PM 12/22/2009, John Quarterman wrote:
>
> > Bob is right about the right's story, and that works for the right, because the right is about tribal us against 
> > them.
>
> This isn't a "right vs. left" issue. People on the political left have every bit as much to lose -- if not more -- 
> than those on the right if the Internet is regulated.
>
> > But to win on matters like net neutrality a more inclusive story is needed, non-zero-sum, participatory, about 
> > community.
>
> No, it is not. To make an effort to "win on network neutrality" is, in fact, to participate in a tribal war -- in 
> which the billion dollar content providers are attacking ISPs of all sizes (and not just large ones; it would harm 
> small ones like me far more). You'd be fighting on the side of Google, and Amazon, and Microsoft. Who are far more 
> dangerous than even the largest telecomm companies, because they are completely unregulated.
>
> By supporting their cause, you would be their fool (as described in the article mentioned in the subject line above), 
> manipulated by their propaganda into doing their bidding.
>
> > Because that's what the Internet enables: participation on a scale never before seen, fueling innovation that 
> > increases the size of the pie for everyone.
>
> Unfortunately, as Dave Farber has said many a time, "network neutrality" regulation would choke off the very 
> innovation which is most important to increasing the size of the pie: innovation by service providers.
>
> > This is all relevant to net neutrality. What industry spends even more lobbying Congress than health insurers? 
> > Telecoms.
>
> And what company has far outspent the telecomms in contributions to the current administration -- giving nearly a 
> billion dollars to the Obama campaign and enlisting many so-called "public interest" groups to do its bidding via 
> large contributions? Google.
>
> > Hell, we're even trying to help the telecoms!
>
> And all telecomm companies are obviously evil. Sure.
>
> > On the path they're on, they'll end up being like GM when NTT comes in and sells 100Mbps FTTH that actually works 
> > for a reasonable price. 50 years ago Motown was the industrial leader of the world; now Detroit is a ghost town. On 
> > Internet time it won't take that long for the duopoly to gut themselves and us if we let them.
>
> There is not a duopoly, and will not be -- unless the "network neutrality" regulation you advocate is passed. If it 
> is, it will destroy the small competitors which are trying to grow to compete with the telephone and cable companies, 
> leaving a duopoly.
>
> You are working against your own cause.
>
> > So let's use the Internet to stop them.
>
> ...because we're all evil, right?
>
> Perhaps we should use the Internet to expose the REAL truth about this matter, which is that network "neutrality" 
> regulation (which is not, in fact, neutral at all) would do great harm to innovation and hence to everyone on the 
> Internet except for a few large content providers.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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





-------------------------------------------
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