Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time!
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
To: "Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects
	heard this time!" <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] 2015 flashback
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 12:28:45 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e28fc8c99246ce9d01ab9bed88fff6c0@rjmcmahon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw5u6zWtUaWvhQZhQE6TqW--MtjoCn0RtzEh8Gfpqus_Zg@mail.gmail.com>

My thoughts are those that want to innovate in network devices should do 
the innovative work and sell their innovations to the market, then find 
out if the market wants those innovations by asking for payments. I find 
if people are unwilling to pay for something it many times means that 
that something isn't seen as desired. Market signals are a way in a 
capitalistic system to allocate resources including human resources.

Asking government to step in and expropriate decades of intellectual 
property development or the outside plants via "type II regulation" is 
typically not effective and likely not even legal. Few want to do the 
work and have their work taken away by the State. Systems that allow 
this will cause investment into these activities to cease, and more 
importantly, it is a form of State coercion parading itself as "doing 
good." Nobody wants to go back to the days of Ma Bell and State 
controlled communications.

There are existence proofs of many new Wifi & AP companies since 2015. 
One may look there to see how these groups were able to innovate so 
their products had monetary value and how device mfg became partners.

Bob
> We had many notables have key and prophetic things to say about the
> internet's problems and future... back in 2015,
> when we were fighting to keep home routers open enough to fix them.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HT2NjsHR1bGQM0PeawYuF60B_m3Hisa3_Q1MB2aVNs4/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> I  do not think any of the contributors to this document have changed
> their opinions much since then, and while I think the situation less
> dire, the overall scope of these problems outlined above, wider.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-10-29 19:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-10-29  6:18 Dave Taht
2023-10-29 19:28 ` rjmcmahon [this message]
2023-10-30 14:20   ` Livingood, Jason
2023-10-30 15:58     ` Robert McMahon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/nnagain.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=e28fc8c99246ce9d01ab9bed88fff6c0@rjmcmahon.com \
    --to=rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com \
    --cc=nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox