Comments on: Missing the point of the Internet http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/missing-the-point-of-the-internet/ A personal blog Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:57:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Richard Bennett http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/missing-the-point-of-the-internet/#comment-5767 Richard Bennett Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:30:22 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/missing-the-point-of-the-internet/#comment-5767 The selection of Crawford and Kevin Werbach to head the transition team's FCC work is certainly an attention grabber. It's a break from tradition in the sense that both are Internet people rather than telecom people, which is something I like. The FCC needs a new direction, and these are good people to provide it. Werbach in particular has done some very intriguing academic work on network formation theory that shows him to be an original thinker. It think this was a good choice. The selection of Crawford and Kevin Werbach to head the transition team’s FCC work is certainly an attention grabber. It’s a break from tradition in the sense that both are Internet people rather than telecom people, which is something I like.

The FCC needs a new direction, and these are good people to provide it. Werbach in particular has done some very intriguing academic work on network formation theory that shows him to be an original thinker. It think this was a good choice.

]]> By: Max http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/missing-the-point-of-the-internet/#comment-5766 Max Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:44:40 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/missing-the-point-of-the-internet/#comment-5766 Richard, What do you think the chances are that any one is going to focus on technical issues seeing as Susan Crawford will be heading up Obama's transition team? Richard,

What do you think the chances are that any one is going to focus on technical issues seeing as Susan Crawford will be heading up Obama’s transition team?

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/missing-the-point-of-the-internet/#comment-5765 Richard Bennett Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:16:42 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/missing-the-point-of-the-internet/#comment-5765 Thanks! Thanks!

]]> By: Brett Glass http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/missing-the-point-of-the-internet/#comment-5764 Brett Glass Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:04:00 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/missing-the-point-of-the-internet/#comment-5764 Richard, it's good to see that SOMEONE understands the actual, original intent of the Internet. The "end to endian" religion was not fundamental to the Net's design, nor was it embraced by many of the original designers. Rather, the purpose of IP -- the "internetworking protocol" -- was to connect networks. Networks which were under different administrative control and different ownership, with different business models and different constraints on permissible uses. (To this day, the academic institutions and government contractors which comprised the original Internet each have their own, unique acceptable use policies.) And one of the reasons why it was created was to allow this freedom and independence -- unlike the Bell System (which was under centralized control). Alas, many people who are not knowledgeable about the architecture of the Internet want to treat it like the Bell System of old (or perhaps even turn it into such a system). But this would kill the opportunities to innovate that the Internet has afforded to date. We must therefore expose the "network neutrality" agenda for what it is: a drive to regulate the Internet in such a way as to serve the interests of various special interest groups. As I've said many times, the only regulation which should apply to the Internet or Internet service providers should be prohibition of monopolistic or anticompetitive practices (just as these practices should be prohibited in any industry). Richard, it’s good to see that SOMEONE understands the actual, original intent of the Internet. The “end to endian” religion was not fundamental to the Net’s design, nor was it embraced by many of the original designers. Rather, the purpose of IP — the “internetworking protocol” — was to connect networks. Networks which were under different administrative control and different ownership, with different business models and different constraints on permissible uses. (To this day, the academic institutions and government contractors which comprised the original Internet each have their own, unique acceptable use policies.) And one of the reasons why it was created was to allow this freedom and independence — unlike the Bell System (which was under centralized control).

Alas, many people who are not knowledgeable about the architecture of the Internet want to treat it like the Bell System of old (or perhaps even turn it into such a system). But this would kill the opportunities to innovate that the Internet has afforded to date. We must therefore expose the “network neutrality” agenda for what it is: a drive to regulate the Internet in such a way as to serve the interests of various special interest groups. As I’ve said many times, the only regulation which should apply to the Internet or Internet service providers should be prohibition of monopolistic or anticompetitive practices (just as these practices should be prohibited in any industry).

]]>