On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Graydon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:40:43PM -0400, Adam Maas scripsit: >> 3. That's an understatement. Written by people who neither understand >> the impact of such an act nor understand that the US Executive Branch >> already has such powers in an emergncy situation (IE declaration or >> war or suspension of Habeus Corpus) > > Written by people who want to use security fears (e.g., the relentless > inflation of risk from a mostly-hypothetical Chinese "cyberwar" > capability) to regain monopoly control of a distributed network, try. > > It makes no sense if you want to improve network function. If you want > to regain the ability to bill at a monopolist's rates, though, it makes > a lot of sense. > > -- Graydon
The costs of building out serious backbone hardware have already turned Tier 1 networking into a near-monopoly. The internet has evolved from a distributed network to a tiered network with almost all of the tier 2 providers having no more than national reach and tier 3 providers having nearly disappeared outside of datacentres, hosting and the occasional small regional ISP. Its got nothing to do with enabling the monopolists and everything to do with moving the controlling capability from the tier 2 providers to the government (Ironically the Tier 1 providers exercise little control over content and service delivery, it's the Tier 2 regional providers who control that and thus are at the forefront of pay-for-QoS and other such silly ideas). -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
