Vint Cerf, co-inventor of the internet endorses Obama and discusses Net Neutrality

He's a wanker.

Google's coup: The internet's first rule book

So todays internet is an anarchy, where users can drive what they like. And despite the fact that bad, anti-social applications can run riot - and they do - people seem to like it this way. Its an anarchy which carries the overwhelming consensus of internet users. No one (actually, almost no one) is Marching With Placards demanding that some state agency protect us from ourselves, and write a book of rules specifically for what should be technically permissible.

For almost twenty years, internet engineers have persuaded regulators not to intervene in this network of networks, and phenomenal growth has been the result. Because data revenues boomed, telecoms companies which had initially regarded packet data networking with hostility, preferred to sit back and enjoy the returns.

But thats changing fast. Two months ago the US regulator, which scrupulously monitors public radio for profanity, and which spent months investigating a glimpse of Janet Jacksons nipples, decided it needed to start writing technical mandates. And so off it went...

...The driving force behind the new rules is surprising. It's not the business world's natural bureaucracies, the telecoms companies with their ancestry as state-owned or state-regulated monopolies. It's actually Google.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/15/neutrality_in_europe_analysis/

There are definitely evil forces tearing the current Internet apart.

There is hope. I BELIEVE Science holds many of the answers to fixing our digital universe at its core.

Below is a proposal for a manifesto I'm writing about HOW Science will end up saving our Internet.

http://changethis.com/proposals/1407

Thanks for the link Joel.

At some point, I think it is human nature that efforts to set regulation would come on strong, just as they did for radio, TV and the telephone.

Unfortunately, I think the issue of whether the internet will be regulated is already over. It will be. What's really important is educating and engaging the public in the discussion of how to regulate it, and what not to regulate.

Unfortunately, interests that want to regulate the internet find it easier if they can do it on the down-low and avoid a big public debate. They prefer to push through legislation in cohorts with political buddies who have their fingers in the pot if certain kinds of regulation can be enforced.

And then there are the governments. While democracies are less inclined to ban content outright, theocracies and authoritarian governments have no hesitation in censoring content, as well as restricting access, to dissidents or political opposition organizations.

I think at some point, we have to take responsibility. We can't just say "oh well," and assume humans will self-regulate. They don't. Industry doesn't self-regulate either, as we have seen in the banking and mortgage industry and on wall-street. Sorry, but the "free market" is not a wonder-drug that magically, and inexplicably, solves all of society's problems. I think we have seen that philosophy die along with the middle class's life savings and their ability to maintain a middle-class lifestyle on a single wage-earner's income.

Regulation is the only answer to the ban/not ban issue.

Porn, for example. Under the ban/no ban model you either make it totally illegal, or you open up all the networks for free reign of the highly-profitable porn business, meaning either no, you cannot have internet sex in the privacy of your home, or yes, your six-year-old daughter will have her virtual virginity raped out of her in short order.

Not a very palatable choice either way.

Regulation is the only sensible solution. Then you can do stuff like make sure no one who doesn't have a valid credit card (which eliminates most minors) cannot access porn, and you can regulate that porn is only available on certain channels, and/or certain times (like well after children's traditional bedtimes).

Or spam. Under no regulation, you have the current situation: 70% of internet traffic is spam, and the access and content providers end up paying for it by passing the cost onto the consumer.

I'd prefer, as a consumer, to not pay for the spam, and if it can be lawfully regulated to cut down dramatically that percentage, I'm all for it. It may not be, just as most of my snail-mail is still the insidious"bulk mail" that goes directly to the recycling bin, and amounts to useless tree-killing.

But no regulation at all means usually there's a free-for-all period followed by the biggest predators gobbling up all the smaller competitors. The big predators then just set the rules anyway, so that they gouge the consumer with no legal oversight.

So I don't see no regulation at all as ultimately being the right approach, and censorship being the exact opposite, and equally wrong approach.

Like it or not, we have to figure out how we are going to deal with the internet market. I suggest not letting politicians and the big predatory corporations do it on the down-low for us, then springing the unsavory results on us in our user agreements and contracts.

For almost twenty years, internet engineers have persuaded regulators not to intervene in this network of networks, and phenomenal growth has been the result. Because data revenues boomed, telecoms companies which had initially regarded packet data networking with hostility, preferred to sit back and enjoy the returns.

Gradually, I think it is human nature that efforts recreate regulation would come about strong, just as they will did for radio, TV as well as telephone.

Unfortunately, I think the condition of whether the internet could be regulated is already in excess of. It will be. What's vital is educating and engaging the population in the discussion of the way to regulate it, and what will not regulate.

Unfortunately, interests trying to regulate the internet still find it easier if they can achieve it on the down-low and avoid a big public disagreement. They prefer to force through legislation in cohorts with political buddies that have their fingers in this pot if certain forms of regulation can be forced.