Frankston on Ending the "FCC"

(From Dave Farber's Interesting People list. -- Seth)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [IP] more on   Why the FCC should die
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 06:23:03 -0400
From: David Farber <[email protected]>
To: Ip <[email protected]>


	From: 	  [email protected]
	Subject: 	RE: [IP] Why the FCC should die
	Date: 	June 10, 2004 5:27:50 PM EDT
	To: 	  [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
	Cc: 	  [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


Of course I agree with Declan but he's being too accommodating to the
assumption that we need spectrum management. Isn't it about time we got past
the harmonic telegraph and the idea of assigning each orchestra a single
note?

At very least we should require that the Federal Speech Commission explain
why it must (as per the US first amendment) regulate communications
(meaning) now that we know that the bits do not have intrinsic meaning and
the Internet demonstrates that the scarcity of transport was caused by the
regulation of meaning.

My current sound bite is that the Internet is the result of the / between
TCP/IP. We now need put the slash in tele/communications to separate
transport from meaning.

While I want to go into far more detail, I'll keep this note short. What is
important is that the idea that the FSC is not just unnecessary but does
real harm become widely accepted. It seems that people (and commissioners)
would rather cling to their TiVos than risk opportunity.

Imagine a tele/communications world!

-------------------------------------

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/