nanog mailing list archives
Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
From: "Wayne E. Bouchard" <web () typo org>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:41:47 -0700
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:59:09AM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
You're very welcome. My previous career was as a broadcast chief operator. Knowing 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 73, 74, and 101 was part of that job (and a part I do not miss). Radio (both amateur and professional) used to be, prior to the late 1920's, an unregulated free-for-all similar to the current state of the Internet; but that proved to be unworkable, eventually producing the Communications Act of 1934, which established the Federal Communications Commission with real authority to regulate radio.
Yeah, and we're all just thrilled at how the FCC has conducted itself over the past 20 years, aren't we? (Speaking as one who grew around the technical side of broadcasting.) :-/ I'm undecided wether such regulation is a good thing or not. I agree that the current state of affairs is ultimately unworkable but government's role is to provide necessary restraints to protect the ability of new competitors to enter into the market place and to enable fair competition, not to regulate for the sake of regulating. With yesterday's results, I do not believe this is quite the right time to be persuing such actions since there is now a worrisome imbalance in the system. See, thing is, if "tier 1" becomes regulated, "tier 2" will almost certainly follow. Probably much more open, but regulation will still follow. (Open doors are hard to close.) When you get right down to it, this discussion really sounds like a request for something along the lines of Telecom '96. Not sure I like that thought or not. I'm still undecided as to wether that was a good or a bad thing but leaning towards good. -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard web () typo org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Current thread:
- Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) Lamar Owen (Nov 05)
- Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) Larry Sheldon (Nov 05)
- Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) William Herrin (Nov 05)
- Re: Internet partitioning event regulations Kevin Loch (Nov 05)
- Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) Michal Krsek (Nov 07)
- Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) William Herrin (Nov 05)
- Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) Wayne E. Bouchard (Nov 05)
- Re: Internet partitioning event regulations Pierfrancesco Caci (Nov 06)
- Re: Internet partitioning event regulations Larry Sheldon (Nov 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) Lamar Owen (Nov 05)
- Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) Larry Sheldon (Nov 05)
- RE: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP (Nov 05)
- RE: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) Lamar Owen (Nov 05)
- Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent) Larry Sheldon (Nov 05)