| | |
|
JaimeSalasFirstPaper 5 - 02 Feb 2013 - Main.JaimeSalas
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. | | |
The analysis of these principles goes beyond the scope of this work, however, in general terms it seems that OECD members are implicitly acknowledging that there is no much space for regulatory actions and most of such principles do not prescribe specific policy solutions but rather they outline universal guidelines for Internet policy. As Google's Robert Boorstin said about it, when was the last time governments got together and decided they weren't the right ones to take the lead on something?" he asked. "This is a big deal." | |
<
< | From a regulatory perspective, maybe the main role for governments is to take the leadership in promoting investment and competition in high-speed networks and services. That would be their main contribution in order to promote robust competition in the provision of high-speed broadband Internet and make it available to users at affordable prices and to attain the greatest geographic coverage, but regarding what people will do with their internet connection, government action cannot help. | >
> | From a regulatory perspective, maybe the main role for governments is to take the leadership in promoting investment and competition in high-speed networks and services and in terms of content ensure through legal rules and a proper enforcement of such rules freedom of expression and freedom of thought on the net.. To serve that purpose governments should also set clear rules and establish fair, transparent and open mechanisms to allocate for a limited period of time the administration and use of the wireless spectrum. From my perspective, the most efficient way in which the wireless spectrum can truly serve as a public-good it´s by creating the incentives to allow communities, entrepeneurs, multinational corporations or anyone who can provide a reliable service to invest in it and offer lay people access to all the opportunities that Internet can provide. | | | | |
<
< | What is the thesis of this essay, put in a sentence?
How do you satisfy yourself of the conclusion that
networks—including wireless networks "made" of the spectrum
which is every citizen's common, equal property—should be built
as private property of favored capitalists, given exclusive access to
those common resources by the state? Did you consider that networks
should be built by the people, for common use and common ownership?
On what basis did you reject that possibility?
Similarly, how did you satisfy yourself that the State has a choice
of "Internet policy"? If the State is committed to protecting
freedom of expression and freedom of thought, what choices with
respect to the regulation of content in the Net is it free to make?
If it is not committed to protecting freedom of expression and
freedom of thought, what difference does it make which elements of
oppression of speech and thought it makes official, as opposed to
unofficial, policy? | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |