Vlogga, please

Reminder, I will be on a panel at Vloggercon here in San Francisco, in about an hour. It's sold out apparently, but it may be worth a try if you want to come by.

------

Alright, I survived. Folks were very informative on the panel and in the audience. The audience was really skeptical about the free market (whether it exists, whether we need regulation). I hope I at least planted the seed that, even if you don't like the telcos, it would be extraordinarily naive to think that the government will do better.

The co-panelists were great. Thankfully, most of them supported a free market in theory. The audience, not so much. Where the panelists differed was the degree to which we believe the telcos should be given free reign. A lot of unanswered questions of course, which is often the outcome of a good talk.

Shouts-out: Adriana Cronin-Lukas is one of the two main editors over at Samizdata, one of the leading libertarian sites, though she bristles at that description. She believes that the discussion is broader than government vs free market, though I must admit that I did not entirely follow. I'm kinda literal-minded, I hope she will follow up.

Paul Kapustka has been covering the industry since the 90's, and he is an expert on the politics of all this. He doesn't like the telcos much! Very well-informed, great sense of humor, check out his blog.

Daniell Krawczyk took it from a community-rights perspective, and the future of individual video vs the big guys (Verizon et al) getting into the video business. I really don't think vloggers are threatened. I think that we will see a new generation of video hosting companies, with more intelligent networks, which will benefit the individual. It's easy to say that a big corporation wants to shut you up. No, they want to make money, and that makes then very vulnerable.

Mike Hudack, one of the organizers, gave me some very good, pointed questions about my trust in the free market. He comes from a sincere, free-market perspective, so I had to respect the hard questions.

Mike made the good point that government must regulate in order for the free-market to exist. Enforcing property rights is a great example. So, there are limits to ideology here and I can't disagree. I prefer to keep them way out at the edges -- neutrality legislation puts them in our routers.

Many on the panel repeated the idea that big corporations are essentially their own nation-states. That's a very dangerous road to go down -- you essentially get what you wish for. Corporations don't have any power that you don't give them (as a consumer), unlike government.

Corporations are much more accountable. Remember, the government only needs to please 51% of its customers every 4 years or so. A corporation that performs at that level ceases to exist.

Now, there is a legitimate concern when a corporation uses the state for its own ends. Remember, the state essentially has unlimited power. A "light touch" by government is a non-sequitir.

I would not deny that the telcos (and their opponents on the content side) are trying to do precisely that. The reality is, which is worse? Neutrality legislation empowers government. Don't be fooled.

------

We were asked to recommend some further reading at the end of the panel today. You will probably want to just check out my net neutrality index and look for the names I mention. Notables:

• Martin Geddes explains why neutrality is ill-defined, technologically naive and unenforceable.
• Jim Lippard understands more than you and me combined.
• Dave Siegel explains that Global Crossing is already prioritizing packets and that it is fundamental to their business and to their customers.
• George Ou is a hands-on network guy who sets the laymen straight.
• Mark Cuban really wants to sell you HD programming on a multi-tiered Internet.