Re 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" <farber () gmail com>]

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Andrew Lippman <lip () media mit edu>
> 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
> Date: December 18, 2017 at 6:36:44 PM EST
> 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=20171220145046:101D21D2-E5BF-11E7-A32A-C0EFA74E7557
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com