Monday, August 16, 2004
Lessig Blog asks: What should the Telecom Act of 2006 look like?
Tim Wu, guestblogging at Lessig's Blog, puts forward six principles that he thinks should guide the Telecom Act of (hypothetically) 2006:
My main beef is that the Six Principles are sadly missing a prolog. What and who should the network be for? It needs a "we hold these truths to be evident" clause. I would propose that it should say something like:
Such a prolog informs the reader of the Six Principles e.g., *who* has the right laid out in Principle #1.
A couple other points:
Re #4: Spectrum reform of any kind? Really???
Re #5: One person might think that Regulation X would kill VOIP, while another might think that the very same regulation would make VOIP safe, or make it more acceptable, or something.
Re #6: Abandoning the UNE strategy is one way to go, but putting real teeth in it, e.g., the government will step in if you don't (the way Japan successfully unbundled) is another way to go.
To sum up my first impressions: Tim Wu's attempt is valiant and important, but naive and incomplete. (My first reactions to it, above, are equally naive and incomplete.) We needs a lot more work to create a viable guide to the next telecom act!
1. Codification of the right to use the the applications and network attachments of one's choice (otherwise known as Network Neutrality or Network Freedom).I think this is a constructive first step, and a good conversation starter. So let the conversation begin!
2. Total and final destruction of the vertical regulatory classifications (Title II for common carriers, Title III for wireless, Title IV for cable), replacement with a simple horizontal model.
3. Full and clear preemption of most state and local regulation -- ideally, with limited exceptions.
4. Directed spectrum reform -- of virtually any kind.
5. Any VoIP rules that don't kill VoIP.
6. Abandonment of '96 Act "Unbundled Network Element" approach to telephony competition -- the litigation costs just aren't worth it.
My main beef is that the Six Principles are sadly missing a prolog. What and who should the network be for? It needs a "we hold these truths to be evident" clause. I would propose that it should say something like:
Because communication is inherently valuable and essential to all human beings, the Internet should be designed, coded, and regulated to optimize its connectivity and usefulness to all humans everywhere. Governments should make no law, and coders should write no code that negates, countervenes or diminishes this central value.
Such a prolog informs the reader of the Six Principles e.g., *who* has the right laid out in Principle #1.
A couple other points:
Re #4: Spectrum reform of any kind? Really???
Re #5: One person might think that Regulation X would kill VOIP, while another might think that the very same regulation would make VOIP safe, or make it more acceptable, or something.
Re #6: Abandoning the UNE strategy is one way to go, but putting real teeth in it, e.g., the government will step in if you don't (the way Japan successfully unbundled) is another way to go.
To sum up my first impressions: Tim Wu's attempt is valiant and important, but naive and incomplete. (My first reactions to it, above, are equally naive and incomplete.) We needs a lot more work to create a viable guide to the next telecom act!
Comments:
Post a Comment
