lessig.org— I was asked to give some overview testimony at the FCC's "Network Neutrality" hearing at Stanford yesterday. Here's the testimony.
Apr 21, 2008View in Crawl 4
Yeah, implementing a system that f**ks it's customers just like cell phone providers is a wonderful idea. Let's just revert to the most outdated and worst systems we can with all services. It will really help us prepare for the future.
the current system is insustainable. Pricing against the speed of your line doesnt make sense, it doesn't cost an ISP any more to give you a faster line.Bandwidth however is a finite resource, there simply isn't enough for everyone to use as much as they want to.I pay lots for my unlimited broadband from Virgin Media in the UK and with the amount I download I wouldn't relly mind paying more.ISPs have priced themselves as cheaply as possible assuming users might pop on every day or so to check ebay. These users are cheap and low on overheads, they should be the ones paying £10 a month for their internet.The users downloading gigabytes a day (like me) are using up a lot of resource and should pay more.Some people might need to download large files occasionally and wouldnt mind doing this at night. An off peak package may well suit them.Why is this a bad idea? Do you want as much bandwidth as you can possibly consume for a pittance? be realistic.
"Yes, we do not have very appealing or diverse solutions to choose from, but it is because of regulation, not for a lack of it, that better solutions and prices evade us. Regulation and taxes only increase the costs and set new requirements, typically across the board, and the company providing the service must compensate for this tax either by taking on sponsors and advertisers, or sending the tax onto you in the form of a higher service fee."Deregulation led back to the phone companies combining into AT&T once more. Where is the choice there? They raise the prices of there services because of greed. CEO paychecks are huge! They don't have to increase prices. We had it better off when they broke up the phone company. We are right back to that because of deregulation. To say that regulation did that is outright false."Networks providing entertainment need to pay the bills somehow. Even Digg has advertisements, so I fail to see how you're justified to get something for nothing."They paid the bills before deregulation. Now they can make more money at our expense. I am not asking for free entertainment, I can provide that on my own. I am simply pointing out how deregulation has changed things in a negative way. More commercials is a negative change. "The housing market collapse concerns the establishment of easy credit, based on the false assumption that interest rates would not change. These were not ideal business agreements between those seeking mortgages and those willing to provide them as they were established on flimsy premises. Both groups are taking the hit, albeit disparately. However the fault mainly lies with the fact that this is a centrally controlled and REGULATED economy, in which the Federal Reserve's tinkering of rates and money supply instigated the downfall. Deny it all you want, but regulation is at the core of this economic decline. It first allowed these bad loans, and then destroyed a vast quantity of wealth after manipulating rates."This is only part of the problem. Predatory lending has caused quite a bit of this problem. Fine print and outright lies. DEregulation allowed these loans not regulation. Once these companies were allowed to screw the customer they jumped on it. "Then don't watch the commercials and stop patronizing the businesses that are footing the bill for the news, information, and entertainment you seem to enjoy."I don't watch them. I don't shop at the stores that support the things I am against. However, I do have to throw out a bunch of ads in my mailbox because of deregulation. Aside from moving to a deserted island there is no escape from these companies trying to take my money. They are allowed to advertise through a government agency and there is nothing I can do to stop it.
So your point is that government is good and it's here to protect us, but some politicians are bad and taking bribes from lobbyists. Do you fail to see the connection between these two contradictory positions?? You expect government to overcome inherent corruption in order to regulate corporations? Advancing regulation creates new jobs, which often call for experts, which tend to come from the same giant corporations for which the regulation exists.Unions and corporations are descended from guilds. Each provides for the specialization and empowerment of their respective industry. In modern times, however, unions are not the benefactors of the common worker, for the most part. They are, like corporations, agencies enmeshed with the government, which fear individuals and businesses alike who do not play by their rules. So the Unions and the corporations work to pass laws in a constant destructive struggle resulting in incompetent, bureaucratic business practices.
But how does deregulation help the government? The purpose of a politician or bureaucrat is to justify their existence by expanding their power, or giving power to their friends, such as corporations through the corruption that you seemed to suggest exists.Just because you might not have the specialized skill required to ensure the safety of certain products, that doesn't mean it's automatically up to the government to do the work. Consumer Reports and UL prove that the private sector can provide solutions that work. Why must we have the FDA, which gives special privilege to big pharma based on how much influence and money they pour into the approval process for their drugs? We've all seen the recall stories of drugs that turned out to do more harm than good. And what about the beneficial uses of Marijuana... or having to wait 10 years to use a drug that could save your life? How many people could be alive today if the law wasn't so draconian here??I'm saying if people want regulation, they can get it through voluntary means. The government is extremely inefficient because it tries to be a lot of things to a lot of people, and has the added consequence of being immobile and often unaccountable to those who support it via taxes. There's virtually no semblance of 'customer service' from the government in many of its venues.Good luck fixing Washington. I personally think it's a waste of time, but I would never suggest people not do what they think is right. I will, however, oppose any action that infringes on liberty because freedom of choice is the basis from which we can find solutions that best fit our personal interests.There are some exceptional Unions not under the sway of the government, but the others look to government to resolve their disputes, which is rather dangerous. I would argue that Unions can't defend themselves because of government influence and regulation. You have incidents in the past, like Reagan's layoffs of union workers in the airlines, which hint to the kind of vulnerability that workers have in general, because people CANNOT trust the government to enforce contracts they have with corporations which get greedy and do not honor contracts. I think we have alot to agree upon, but a completely different view of government's role.
andrewdbApr 23, 2008
Here's a Digg Lesson: Post something according to what the original Digg was about.
robotderek42Apr 23, 2008
Buried for two @s in the tittle.
cphelpsApr 23, 2008
Yeah, implementing a system that f**ks it's customers just like cell phone providers is a wonderful idea. Let's just revert to the most outdated and worst systems we can with all services. It will really help us prepare for the future.
kibibytebrainApr 23, 2008
Did you watch the video. That is a direct quote from it.
jamesdewApr 23, 2008
the current system is insustainable. Pricing against the speed of your line doesnt make sense, it doesn't cost an ISP any more to give you a faster line.Bandwidth however is a finite resource, there simply isn't enough for everyone to use as much as they want to.I pay lots for my unlimited broadband from Virgin Media in the UK and with the amount I download I wouldn't relly mind paying more.ISPs have priced themselves as cheaply as possible assuming users might pop on every day or so to check ebay. These users are cheap and low on overheads, they should be the ones paying £10 a month for their internet.The users downloading gigabytes a day (like me) are using up a lot of resource and should pay more.Some people might need to download large files occasionally and wouldnt mind doing this at night. An off peak package may well suit them.Why is this a bad idea? Do you want as much bandwidth as you can possibly consume for a pittance? be realistic.
thesavantApr 23, 2008
"Yes, we do not have very appealing or diverse solutions to choose from, but it is because of regulation, not for a lack of it, that better solutions and prices evade us. Regulation and taxes only increase the costs and set new requirements, typically across the board, and the company providing the service must compensate for this tax either by taking on sponsors and advertisers, or sending the tax onto you in the form of a higher service fee."Deregulation led back to the phone companies combining into AT&T once more. Where is the choice there? They raise the prices of there services because of greed. CEO paychecks are huge! They don't have to increase prices. We had it better off when they broke up the phone company. We are right back to that because of deregulation. To say that regulation did that is outright false."Networks providing entertainment need to pay the bills somehow. Even Digg has advertisements, so I fail to see how you're justified to get something for nothing."They paid the bills before deregulation. Now they can make more money at our expense. I am not asking for free entertainment, I can provide that on my own. I am simply pointing out how deregulation has changed things in a negative way. More commercials is a negative change. "The housing market collapse concerns the establishment of easy credit, based on the false assumption that interest rates would not change. These were not ideal business agreements between those seeking mortgages and those willing to provide them as they were established on flimsy premises. Both groups are taking the hit, albeit disparately. However the fault mainly lies with the fact that this is a centrally controlled and REGULATED economy, in which the Federal Reserve's tinkering of rates and money supply instigated the downfall. Deny it all you want, but regulation is at the core of this economic decline. It first allowed these bad loans, and then destroyed a vast quantity of wealth after manipulating rates."This is only part of the problem. Predatory lending has caused quite a bit of this problem. Fine print and outright lies. DEregulation allowed these loans not regulation. Once these companies were allowed to screw the customer they jumped on it. "Then don't watch the commercials and stop patronizing the businesses that are footing the bill for the news, information, and entertainment you seem to enjoy."I don't watch them. I don't shop at the stores that support the things I am against. However, I do have to throw out a bunch of ads in my mailbox because of deregulation. Aside from moving to a deserted island there is no escape from these companies trying to take my money. They are allowed to advertise through a government agency and there is nothing I can do to stop it.
peppermintpigApr 23, 2008
So your point is that government is good and it's here to protect us, but some politicians are bad and taking bribes from lobbyists. Do you fail to see the connection between these two contradictory positions?? You expect government to overcome inherent corruption in order to regulate corporations? Advancing regulation creates new jobs, which often call for experts, which tend to come from the same giant corporations for which the regulation exists.Unions and corporations are descended from guilds. Each provides for the specialization and empowerment of their respective industry. In modern times, however, unions are not the benefactors of the common worker, for the most part. They are, like corporations, agencies enmeshed with the government, which fear individuals and businesses alike who do not play by their rules. So the Unions and the corporations work to pass laws in a constant destructive struggle resulting in incompetent, bureaucratic business practices.
peppermintpigApr 24, 2008
What's your point, though? Critique is fine, but you could try being constructive.
peppermintpigApr 24, 2008
But how does deregulation help the government? The purpose of a politician or bureaucrat is to justify their existence by expanding their power, or giving power to their friends, such as corporations through the corruption that you seemed to suggest exists.Just because you might not have the specialized skill required to ensure the safety of certain products, that doesn't mean it's automatically up to the government to do the work. Consumer Reports and UL prove that the private sector can provide solutions that work. Why must we have the FDA, which gives special privilege to big pharma based on how much influence and money they pour into the approval process for their drugs? We've all seen the recall stories of drugs that turned out to do more harm than good. And what about the beneficial uses of Marijuana... or having to wait 10 years to use a drug that could save your life? How many people could be alive today if the law wasn't so draconian here??I'm saying if people want regulation, they can get it through voluntary means. The government is extremely inefficient because it tries to be a lot of things to a lot of people, and has the added consequence of being immobile and often unaccountable to those who support it via taxes. There's virtually no semblance of 'customer service' from the government in many of its venues.Good luck fixing Washington. I personally think it's a waste of time, but I would never suggest people not do what they think is right. I will, however, oppose any action that infringes on liberty because freedom of choice is the basis from which we can find solutions that best fit our personal interests.There are some exceptional Unions not under the sway of the government, but the others look to government to resolve their disputes, which is rather dangerous. I would argue that Unions can't defend themselves because of government influence and regulation. You have incidents in the past, like Reagan's layoffs of union workers in the airlines, which hint to the kind of vulnerability that workers have in general, because people CANNOT trust the government to enforce contracts they have with corporations which get greedy and do not honor contracts. I think we have alot to agree upon, but a completely different view of government's role.
kylereApr 24, 2008
Wrong, they have a total monopoly where I live and it is granted until 2025. I have no DSL options, and my only better than dialup option is Comcast.