[discuss] Current drive

Fri Apr 4 16:20:55 UTC 2014

On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:44 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Analogies of course are dangerous … but I’m not sure that I see how what you are suggesting follows… to extend my public transit analogy, how or what folks wear to get on and off the bus doesn’t really matter and if they choose to have special shoes for bus riding so be it (but of course, a well ordered public transit system would make appropriate accommodation for the handicapped, seniors, mothers with young children etc. and would likely influence the design of buses through mass ordering but I can’t see how this would affect the design of automobiles or bicycles for that matter…
>  
> For a very long time in many (most) parts of the world having access to a dial tone was either provided as a public utility or as a highly regulated monopoly… I’m not sure that I see the difference between having an “always on” Internet access and being able to pick up the telephone and have a dial-tone (and yes I know all the arguments against PTT’s etc. but I would suggest that those arguments were about a different time and different technology with much different implications and impacts… --
>  
> How the dial tone was provided was a “black box” for most people provided by the good folks with slide rules and pocket protectors… I see no reason why something similar couldn’t happen with the Internet. How the Internet is used whether for spam or for surveillance etc. is of course something that needs to be addressed but somewhat analogous issues were present in those days as well and there were mechanisms in place to respond…

Michael - 

   We have a dynamic successful Internet precisely because it evolved far faster (and
   external to) the telephony regulatory environment...   It is fairly difficult to regulate  
   something without first defining it, and once defined by governmental bodies, the 
   definitions tend to change only at glacial pace.

   You assert that the way the Internet is to be managed (or more accurately, to 
   be regulated) has some bearing on the principles of how Internet identifiers 
   are administered, and yet that is completely unproved and likely false.  There
   is no need for political overtones regarding Internet usage philosophy to be
   introduced to the Internet identifier management, any more than it is necessary
   to require that users access the Internet via systems designed "in the public
   interest" or assembled with screws that were specified "in the public interest"

   If you wish the use of the Internet to be governed based on "public interest",  then 
   have governments legislate user and service provider behavior appropriately.   It 
   does not require any unique relationship with the Internet identifier system, just 
   as regulation of consumer credit usage does not require direct control over the
   registries of credit card numbers.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140404/92211ae2/attachment.html>