Interesting - I just wonder if we require 'economic growth'. Wouldn't a 'steady state' economy be preferable? Would a steady state economy have no room for innovation? Does innovation require growth?
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Steady_state_economy CHEERS> SAM Seth Johnson wrote: >> http://www.newsweek.com/id/176809 >> > > > Reboot the FCC > > > We'll stifle the Skypes and YouTubes of the future if we don't > demolish the regulators that oversee our digital pipelines. > > > By Lawrence Lessig | Newsweek Web Exclusive > > Dec 23, 2008 > > > Economic growth requires innovation. Trouble is, Washington is > practically designed to resist it. Built into the DNA of the most > important agencies created to protect innovation, is an almost > irresistible urge to protect the most powerful instead. > > The FCC is a perfect example. Born in the 1930s, at a time when the > utmost importance was put on stability, the agency has become the > focal point for almost every important innovation in technology. It is > the presumptive protector of the Internet, and the continued regulator > of radio, TV and satellite communications. In the next decades, it > could well become the default regulator for every new communications > technology, including, and especially, fantastic new ways to use > wireless technologies, which today carry television, radio, internet, > and cellular phone signals through the air, and which may soon provide > high-speed internet access on-the-go, something that Google cofounder > Larry Page calls "wifi on steroids." > > If history is our guide, these new technologies are at risk, and with > them, everything they make possible. With so much in its reach, the > FCC has become the target of enormous campaigns for influence. Its > commissioners are meant to be "expert" and "independent," but they've > never really been expert, and are now openly embracing the political > role they play. Commissioners issue press releases touting their own > personal policies. And lobbyists spend years getting close to members > of this junior varsity Congress. Think about the storm around former > FCC Chairman Michael Powell's decision to relax media ownership rules, > giving a green light to the concentration of newspapers and television > stations into fewer and fewer hands. This is policy by committee, > influenced by money and power, and with no one, not even the > President, responsible for its failures. > > The solution here is not tinkering. You can't fix DNA. You have to > bury it. President Obama should get Congress to shut down the FCC and > similar vestigial regulators, which put stability and special > interests above the public good. In their place, Congress should > create something we could call the Innovation Environment Protection > Agency (iEPA), charged with a simple founding mission: "minimal > intervention to maximize innovation." The iEPA's core purpose would be > to protect innovation from its two historical enemies—excessive > government favors, and excessive private monopoly power. > > Since the birth of the Republic, the U.S. government has been in the > business of handing out "exclusive rights" (a.k.a., monopolies) in > order to "promote progress" or enable new markets of communication. > Patents and copyrights accomplish the first goal; giving away slices > of the airwaves serves the second. No one doubts that these monopolies > are sometimes necessary to stimulate innovation. Hollywood could not > survive without a copyright system; privately funded drug development > won't happen without patents. But if history has taught us anything, > it is that special interests—the Disneys and Pfizers of the world—have > become very good at clambering for more and more monopoly rights. > Copyrights last almost a century now, and patents regulate "anything > under the sun that is made by man," as the Supreme Court has put it. > This is the story of endless bloat, with each round of new monopolies > met with a gluttonous demand for more. > > The problem is that the government has never given a thought to when > these monopolies help, and when they're merely handouts to companies > with high-powered lobbyists. The iEPA's first task would thus be to > reverse the unrestrained growth of these monopolies. For example, much > of the wireless spectrum has been auctioned off to telecom monopolies, > on the assumption that only by granting a monopoly could companies be > encouraged to undertake the expensive task of building a network of > cell towers or broadcasting stations. The iEPA would test this > assumption, and essentially ask the question: do these monopolies do > more harm than good? With a strong agency head, and a staff absolutely > barred from industry ties, the iEPA could avoid the culture of > favoritism that's come to define the FCC. And if it became credible in > its monopoly-checking role, the agency could eventually apply this > expertise to the area of patents and copyrights, guiding Congress's > policymaking in these special-interest hornet nests. > > The iEPA's second task should be to assure that the nation's basic > communications infrastructure spectrum— the wires, cables and cellular > towers that serve as the highways of the information economy—remain > open to new innovation, no matter who owns them. For example, "network > neutrality" rules, when done right, aim simply to keep companies like > Comcast and Verizon from skewing the rules in favor of or against > certain types of content and services that run over their networks. > The investors behind the next Skype or Amazon need to be sure that > their hard work won't be thwarted by an arbitrary decision on the part > of one of the gatekeepers of the Net. Such regulation need not, in my > view, go as far as some Democrats have demanded. It need not put > extreme limits on what the Verizons of the world can do with their > network—they did, after all, build it in the first place—but no doubt > a minimal set of rules is necessary to make sure that the Net > continues to be a crucial platform for economic growth. > > Beyond these two tasks, what's most needed from the iEPA is benign > neglect. Certainly, it should keep competition information flowing > smoothly and limit destructive regulation at the state level, and it > might encourage the government to spend more on public communications > infrastructure, for example in the rural areas which private companies > often ignore. But beyond these limited tasks, whole phone-books worth > of regulation could simply be erased. And with it, we would remove > many of the levers that lobbyists use to win favors to protect today's > monopolists. > > America's economic future depends upon restarting an engine of > innovation and technological growth. A first step is to remove the > government from the mix as much as possible. This is the biggest > problem with communication innovation around the world, as too many > nations who should know better continue to preference legacy > communication monopolies. It is a growing problem in our own country > as well, as corporate America has come to believe that investments in > influencing Washington pay more than investments in building a better > mousetrap. That will only change when regulation is crafted as > narrowly as possible. Only then can regulators serve the public good, > instead of private protection. We need to kill a philosophy of > regulation born with the 20th century, if we're to make possible a > world of innovation in the 21st. > > > Lessig is a professor at Stanford Law School and the author of five > books, including most recently "Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive > in the Hybrid Economy." > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > -- Sam Joseph, Ph.D. Co-Director Laboratory for Interactive Learning Technologies Department of Information and Computer Sciences University of Hawaii _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
