Bob Frankston worries about content and connectivity bundling by Comcast and Disney.
I wonder… what if the various commons movements acted to create and enforce reciprocal responsibilities as part of their condition of use? As a Comcast subscriber, you would simply see your attempts to access Creative Commons on GPL licensed content blocked.
“We note you have attempted to access this content from a parasitical ISP. Due to our policy of reciprocal obligation for open access to connectivity and service, you will be required to contribute $10 to the Electronic Frontier Foundation before proceeding.”
Various other socially-minded web sites like BoingBoing could do likewise. “As a Verizon customer, you are now required to view 10 pages of Flash-ridden adverts before viewing the article. If you do not like this requirement, please call Verizon and discuss their e-mail blocking policies with them.”
The danger, of course, is that this could create a mutually-reinforcing fragmentation of the Internet, rather than the converse that we seek. I’m not a good enough game theorist to construct the right incentives to escape such a Prisoners’ Dilemma. BTW, where does the apostrophe go? Google doesn’t tell.
One of the weaknesses of the Internet and IP was that nobody thought through the social and economic sides of a standard means of interconnecting networks. Where’s the General Peering Agreement, a viral means of ensuring open access?
Posted by Martin Geddes at 11:53 AMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telepocalypse.net/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/mgeddes/MT/mt-tb.cgi/446.
i think its either, you could be saying it is the dilemma of each individual prisoner (i.e. prisoner's) or the overall dilemma faced by the both (prisoners'). i think :D
Posted by: at April 11, 2005 01:47 PMTucker's obituary in the New York Times uses the plural, "prisoners'". Wikipedia uses the singular, "prisoner's". And the apparent originator of the term, Albert W. Tucker, titled his (unpublished) notes "A two-person dilemma" -- I haven't been able to find an online copy of the notes to see which version of the term he used, if he in fact used it at all. Ah, the mysteries of language.
Posted by: at April 11, 2005 02:42 PM"General Peering Agreement" good question.
This posting is analogous to the the discussions about using patent pools to create poison pills flickering about the open source communities.
In the open telcom space I am impressed that DUNDi http://voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=DUNDi has a peering agreement right out of the box. Many of these P2P systems just ignore the problem thinking they can solve it with technology.
Posted by: at April 11, 2005 03:25 PM