Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Tim Wu and Cory Doctorow on Network Neutrality
At the heart of the Network Neutrality debate is the issue of discrimination, an a priori decision that this traffic, or that content, or some source/destination is better than another. In the 1960s the hot political issue involved another kind of discrimination. What can we learn?
Tim's article in Slate says (in part),
Imagine how we'd feel if we saw the 1960s kind of discrimination and said, "Wow, a regulatory solution, like bussing, is going to be a disaster, so let's not try." Imagine if, not seeing an uncomplicated solution, we did not do anything about 1960-style discrimination. Bussing indeed failed. But if we had not tried would we still have white-only water fountains? And see white-only TV and a white-only Congress? No, Cory, we HAVE to do this, even if the only outcome imaginable is a messy, unworkable one. The struggle is the victory.
Wow, I've never disagreed with Cory before.
Tim's article in Slate says (in part),
In trying to figure out who's right, let's forget about the Internet and look at KFC. The fast-food chain discriminates. It has an exclusive deal with Pepsi, and that seems fine to pretty much everyone. Now, let's think about the nation's highways. How would you feel if I-95 announced an exclusive deal with General Motors to provide a special "rush-hour" lane for GM cars only?Cory Doctorow over at bOING bOING replies
I agree with net-neutralists . . . [but] . . . I remain skeptical of the idea that this is a problem with a regulatory solution. The FCC is slow, often captured, and breathtakingly dumb about technology (this is the agency that passed the initial Broadcast Flag rule, after all). Asking them to write a set of rules describing "neutrality" and then enforce them seems like a recipe for trouble to me.Cory's right. The regulatory solution, especially an FCC regulatory solution, is going to be trouble. But he's wrong if he implies we should not try (for regulatory solutions, for economic solutions, for technological solutions).
Imagine how we'd feel if we saw the 1960s kind of discrimination and said, "Wow, a regulatory solution, like bussing, is going to be a disaster, so let's not try." Imagine if, not seeing an uncomplicated solution, we did not do anything about 1960-style discrimination. Bussing indeed failed. But if we had not tried would we still have white-only water fountains? And see white-only TV and a white-only Congress? No, Cory, we HAVE to do this, even if the only outcome imaginable is a messy, unworkable one. The struggle is the victory.
Wow, I've never disagreed with Cory before.
Technorati Tags: NetworkNeutrality, CoryDoctorow, TimWu
Comments:
So it's better to attempt to do something which you can predict will fail? That's silly, David. Better to do something whose outcome you can't predict -- at least you have a CHANCE of success.
Russell,
I did not venture a prediction! I said, hypothetically, "even if the only outcome imaginable is a messy, unworkable one." I actually imagine more, much more, than this hypothetical. If you miss this, you miss my central point.
Let me make one actual prediction, one that is indeed certain: If we don't try, we're sure to fail.
I did not venture a prediction! I said, hypothetically, "even if the only outcome imaginable is a messy, unworkable one." I actually imagine more, much more, than this hypothetical. If you miss this, you miss my central point.
Let me make one actual prediction, one that is indeed certain: If we don't try, we're sure to fail.
Disagreeing with Cory should be common. He's only another person with an opinion.
As for regulation, you will never know till you try, if it will work or not.
Anytime congress passes a law, someone's rights get removed. But would you remove the restriction over which side of the road you drive on?
Many of the restrictions we place on ourselves are based on an understanding of our human nature. We know that we are greedy, we place restrictions on our greed.
Since corporations are treated as a 'corporate body' and hence treated in the courts as if the corporation were a human. You must treat that person based upon what you believe that persons ethics are founded on. Since Corporations have no moral soul, the observations of it's ethical behavior are, that it has no ethics. And hence controls placed on the corporate person are greater than that placed on a human person.
As for regulation, you will never know till you try, if it will work or not.
Anytime congress passes a law, someone's rights get removed. But would you remove the restriction over which side of the road you drive on?
Many of the restrictions we place on ourselves are based on an understanding of our human nature. We know that we are greedy, we place restrictions on our greed.
Since corporations are treated as a 'corporate body' and hence treated in the courts as if the corporation were a human. You must treat that person based upon what you believe that persons ethics are founded on. Since Corporations have no moral soul, the observations of it's ethical behavior are, that it has no ethics. And hence controls placed on the corporate person are greater than that placed on a human person.
David, you said that you would pursue regulation "EVEN IF the only outcome imaginable is a messy, unworkable one". In other words, you are committing yourself to a course of action BOTH when you can't predict failure AND when you can ("even if").
If you can predict that the best you can do is equal to the worst you can do, and you throw resources into the fight for the best, you have wasted those resources. In that case, if you do try, you're sure to fail even worse than if you don't try.
The trouble with regulation is that the regulators don't know what the fuck they're doing. Experts like you and me can't figure it out -- so why should diletanttes like regulators have any chance?
You may as well ask the devil to save you from damnation.
If you can predict that the best you can do is equal to the worst you can do, and you throw resources into the fight for the best, you have wasted those resources. In that case, if you do try, you're sure to fail even worse than if you don't try.
The trouble with regulation is that the regulators don't know what the fuck they're doing. Experts like you and me can't figure it out -- so why should diletanttes like regulators have any chance?
You may as well ask the devil to save you from damnation.
branedy, you are only looking at one side of the coin of corporate personhood. A corporate person can live forever -- but it can also die tomorrow -- and starving a corporate person because it tried to sell the wrong thing is not unethical.
As far as ethics of corporations go, corporations do not have any ethics any more than a rock has ethics! A corporation does not take any actions and thus is not treatable as an ethical individual. Only people take action, and if people take unethical actions, then they are unethical. That is why Lay and Skilling are on trial, not Enron.
As far as ethics of corporations go, corporations do not have any ethics any more than a rock has ethics! A corporation does not take any actions and thus is not treatable as an ethical individual. Only people take action, and if people take unethical actions, then they are unethical. That is why Lay and Skilling are on trial, not Enron.
Actually Corporations take actions all the time. only people like Lay and Skilling are being tried because that broke the law, called accounting fraud. That is not a regulatory crime. Starving a corporate person is legal and ethical if they are not not pursuing the consumers best interest, any more than if you help an obese person from eating too much. Or killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Post a Comment
