I doubt Marcus took your e-mail personally. I think he was making a standard point about obligation and advocacy.
Your idea of dividing bandwidth in the same (or similar) ways things like roads or power might be divided is interesting, though. All of the precision you raise can be done. Our laws surrounding things like HOV lanes or even luxury taxes would apply to network bandwidth _if_ our legislators and the public would take the time to learn what it all means. ... reminds me of this kerfuffle: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/friends-please-tell-t-mobiles-ceo-about-eff On 03/07/2016 11:55 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Are we obligated to provide expanded bandwidth for all activities equally I actually don’t know what I think about that question, which is why I want to hear it discussed. Is there any legitimate argument to be made for the equivalent of “emergency vehicles” on the “information super-highway”? Or HOV lanes. Is there really no way to distinguish between work and entertainment? Any time a City issues a bond or appropriates funds, it constitutes a collective action, right? So then, collective benefit presumably comes into play, if only of the “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours” kind. So then, we get to make arguments about the relative benefits to a community (or the individuals in it) of different potential allocations. That’s all I meant by “moral urgency”, when push comes to shove. I suppose from Ting’s point of view, it’s all irrelevant. The more use the better. Again my apologies for being annoying. You have made several very helpful contributions to this thread, and I would hate to lose you.
-- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
