Re: What is Net Neutrality all About?

I agree most heartily with your comments. Internet gatekeepers are a sketchy
> issue, however. Who regulates the regulators? It is important that > regulating the internet with gatekeepers does not "throw the baby out with > the bathwater", per se. Who ensures that the gatekeepers are regulated?

Very good point. I don't know the answer.

For the first question, "regulated vs. unregulated" I do believe in regulation. We as consumers gave up an awful lot when some industries were deregulated. Proponents of deregulation claim the benefits outweighed the costs, but I feel strongly those proponents pretty much ignore or minimize the costs. Norvergence and Enron, anyone?

The second question, "who regulates the regulators" is a lot tougher. I think _overall_ the history of FCC/PUC over the old Bell System was pretty good -- we got excellent service at good rates (with very few exceptions). But other regulators weren't so good -- Western Union got a raw deal* compared to the Bell System, and railroads suffered terribly under the old ICC**.

I'll note one mistake: government pressure on the Bell System in the

1960s and 70s to hire disadvantaged people. Oslin says this contributed to the service crisis of that area (not the only factor) because so many new craft people were inexperienced and some just weren't that good.

Your comments on "mob rule" were straight on the point, sir.

Thanks.

*I think Bell's TWX unfairly hurt WU's own Telex, and WU was forced to absorb the bankrupt Postal Telegraph. I do think WU should've been allowed to do more voice carriage than it did. (Per Oslin's book)

**Railroads did much better under deregulation, but new problems of service quality exist. Due to mega mergers, railroads have become de facto monopolies. IMHO, they're not building additional capacity to provide better service that they should.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: People often times praise two long- > time netizens for their abilities; one being Vint Cerf and the other > being Esther Dyson, in other words, the ICANN people. Maybe -- if we > can think out of the box for a few minutes -- an organization like > ICANN could handle this 'gatekeeper' function pretty well. Any > thoughts? PAT]

I can't comment on those people or organization.

However, the first issue is whether there is to be a "gatekeeper" at all -- a great many people do not want one as the postings show.

Presuming there will be gatekeeper, then the "gate" itself has to be defined and this is tough and tricky. How big is the gate? How tough is it to pass by?

Too little regulation is worthless. Too much regulation is stifling.

One would think this would be an objective engineering decision but it's not. Engineers have very different ideas and opinions. Businesses, both conveyors and users, have different legitimate interests.

[public replies, please]