[1873] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: interesting historical document
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sean mclinden)
Sat Jan 4 11:58:44 1992
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 92 11:43:46 -0500
From: sean@dsl.pitt.edu (sean mclinden)
To: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu, sean@dsl.pitt.edu
Cc: com-priv@uu.psi.com, geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us
re: the TPRC
I would love to hear more of the details (dates, agenda, deadlines for
submission of position papers, etc.).
> To restate one of my observations, we are involved in the definition
> and building of the first new communications infrastructure in the
> era of de-regulation. It is not surprising that things are
> "confused".
No, but it would be surprising, given the wealth of information that
we have accumulated in our rich telecommunications experience if we
failed to apply the lessons that we have learned to this newest endeavor.
> We are setting future policy and direction. We could, I surpose, have
> the FCC come back and set it for us? Any one who wants that?!
Therein lies the rub! Without meaning to give offense to you this last
statement implies a lot but says nothing. It presumes that something is
inherently bad when, in fact, it may simply have been done badly. Certainly
the FCC has, in the past, been prone to misjudgement and, in some cases,
corruption and favoritism. This is a problem with agencies whose task is
to support both commercial and individual interests. But the statement
implies that regulation is, in an of itself, bad, and there is a great
deal of experience that suggests that insofar as public utilities are
concerned, and one COULD make a strong argument that national networking
is a public utility, regulation is essential to support ubiquity of access.
In any event, we don't need rhetoric, rather we need open considered
discussion rooted in fact and experience. I would welcome such a track
at TPRC and the opportunity to present a position paper on the subject.
Sean McLinden
