The US Congress has been thinking about new telecom legislation (latest draft in pdf here). That's generated an incredible volume of discussion on policy blogs and email reflectors -- so much so that I can no longer keep up. But most of the discussion focuses on what the federal government should do.
The Internet's success is the result of edge-based innovation. Doesn't anyone see a parallel?
The final straw was this article by Scott Bradner. Scott is an Internet guru who's held numerous senior positions within the IETF. He knows more about Internet technology and politics than I ever will and yet he writes:
Just what might good telecom regulation include? What would I do if it were up to me? First, as the House bill does, I'd preempt all local and state controls...
Surely that violates everything that made the Internet what it is today. Preempt local folks and impose central control??
As Justice Brandeis commented in NEW STATE ICE CO. v. LIEBMANN, 285 U.S. 262 (1932) :
It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.
In today's context, it would be better if the only thing the Feds did was limit the ability of the current duopolists to interfere with local communities doing whatever they want. Undoubtedly some communities would screw it up, but others would do far better than any single national policy.
Edge-based policy would allow comparison of regulatory approaches and, over time, the net benefit for the country would far exceed that obtained by any universal national policy.
Comments