I am a proponent of some level of regulation in the Internet as soon as possible. I think this minimal level of regulation is critical to the Internets open and unrestricted development.
David - Is not regulation and unrestricted development at odds? The communications Act of 1996 is an attempt to remove restrictions put in place in 1934. The history of the telephone is an excellent of example of why not to regulate. The 40-years after 1934 was a Tellecommunications dark-age. Little innovation, diversity of service or choice. The Internet industry is too young to keep stagnet and survive in a competitive world market.
As an entrepreneur and a professional in this industry, I urge some minimal level of immediate regulation such that the application of accepted telecommunications law and practices are upheld.
Are the accepted telecommunications law and practices such a good thing to uphold?
If they are not, I fear we will suffer the consequences of the accumulation of all the economic power over the Internet in to a very small number of hands. To me this is a very big problem, perhaps one even worth losing your job over.
David, you stood up for what you believe in and I have a great amount of respect for that. Perhaps in a few years we can look back when UUNET and a few others have put all the other ISP's out of business, and wonder why somthing was not done. You have a major battle to fight to convince people of that fact, and if you can, the rest will fall in place. I personally do not agree that it will happen as I am a great believer in the free markets ability to self-heal. After all, its just people, and no one likes a company that doesnt play fair. .stb