another two noter on Alfred Kahn on network neutrality

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David S. Isenberg" <[email protected]>
Date: November 1, 2006 10:35:02 AM EST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IP] Alfred Kahn on network neutrality

Dave,

I've written a reply to Alfred Kahn's piece.
I know you agree more with Kahn than with me, but
since you've often used IP as a platform for dissenting
opinions, perhaps you might want to distribute it to
the IP list . . .

My full post is here:
http://isen.com/blog/2006/10/alfred-kahn-on-network-neutrality.html

An excerpt:
> Kahn emphatically points out that the FCC stepped in when
> Madison River Communications blocked Vonage VOIP service
> and says,

> >It is unthinkable that the regulatory or antitrust agencies
> >would not strike down any other such discrimination by the
> >telephone or cable companies against competing providers
> >of content in favor of their own.
>
> So what is Kahn's problem with a law prohibiting the
> unthinkable? After all, we're a nation of laws, not of humans.
> That's the theory, anyhow. I merely observe that the
> "unthinkable" of one FCC chairman can become standard
> operating procedure to another.

Regards,
David I
-------



Begin forwarded message:
From: "Faulhaber, Gerald" <[email protected]>
Date: November 1, 2006 11:31:43 AM EST
To: David Farber <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [IP] Alfred Kahn on network neutrality

Kahn's point is that we already have laws/regulations that provide
effective protection in the event bad stuff happens.  Why do we need a
whole new layer of regulation?  Isenberg seems to take the view that
laying on some more regulation is perfectly OK.  I strongly disagree; we
have more than enough regulation these days.


Professor Gerald Faulhaber
Business and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Professor of Law
University of Pennsylvania