
Lack of regulation is the main reason for huge success of the web - emmanuelory
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2011-03/02/gq-comment-ed-vaizey-internet-neutrality-censorship-bt-virgin
======
ramanujan
This is more true than most people realize. The web was inherently hard to
regulate from the beginning because a given page could pull in assets from
many different states and countries. So regulators basically gave up.

It's quite possible that with a different set of circumstances, the problems
of spam, porn, black hat SEO, etc. would have triggered a regulatory response
that would likely have massively slowed down the growth of the internet.

Imagine FDA-style, mandatory, centralized, single point of failure, pre-market
review of every website for "safety" and "efficacy".

That's insane to contemplate, but a few high profile "Myspace child predator"
scare stories at the beginning of the internet could very well have made it
happen.

Even the very concept of pre-market review is strange to the internet. Here
it's accepted that you launch and figure things out iteratively. Part of the
reason is that we're more tolerant of visible crashes in computers than other
fields.

However, systematic studies (e.g.
[http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/12...](http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/12/device-
lag-at-the-fda.html)) have shown that centralized pre-market review even in
areas like healthcare costs more lives and money than it claims to save. [Not
to digress too much, but among other things, the lack of an opt-out means the
FDA has no incentive to remain competent. There are thousands of schools that
certify medical doctors, but only one certification agency for medical
devices. The relative lack of innovation in healthcare vs. IT is in nontrivial
part due to this stifling regulation; see for example what happens when
internet culture collides with FDA culture here:
[http://mobihealthnews.com/6932/interview-the-iphone-
medical-...](http://mobihealthnews.com/6932/interview-the-iphone-medical-app-
denied-510k/)]

~~~
hexis
"There are thousands of schools that certify medical doctors, but only one
certification agency for medical devices."

Somewhat amazingly, there are only 133 schools in the united states that award
MDs - <https://www.aamc.org/about/medicalschools/>

~~~
maxharris
The fact that this is so tightly regulated is directly responsible for the
well-known shortage of physicians (especially primary care) in the US.

Here's some data about how the supply of doctors is constrained by law:
[http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S8p3XotZRpI/AAAAAAAANQ...](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S8p3XotZRpI/AAAAAAAANQ4/9Bn63-6lmgs/s1600/medschool.jpg)

([http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/04/medical-school-grads-
hav...](http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/04/medical-school-grads-have-been-
flat.html))

For the last 30 years, only 16,000 new doctors are let through each year, and
this is very carefully regulated to keep guild members rich. There's nothing
wrong with people getting rich, so long as they don't use the government to
secure and maintain their monopoly. This is why state licensing should be
abolished.

Unfortunately, it's been this way since the Middle Ages. Does it have to be
this way? Not if you decide that people should be free to choose for
themselves which expert they should seek medical help from, and what
qualifications they require. If you own your own body (and I say you do), this
is your right to decide.

~~~
jbooth
There's probably a middle ground between the current exclusionary system and
some guy with a mail-ordered Hard Knocks University degree on his wall being
allowed to practice medicine on people.

~~~
maxharris
The solution is freedom.

Freedom means freedom from fraud. So if the guy with a mail-ordered degree
_lies_ to someone and says he got a degree from Harvard, causing that person
to get "treated" when they would otherwise have gone elsewhere, that's when
the government should intervene.

Saving people from themselves is foolhardy, and such efforts are invariably
used as tools of repression.

~~~
jbooth
Is this tongue in cheek? The solution is "freedom"? Like get ahold of a whole
bunch of powdered freedom and just sprinkle it over the medical industry?

The solution is likely a series of detailed, technocratic tweaks to the
accreditation process to allow more schools offer an MD while not allowing
Clown College to offer one. I'm an educated guy and I have zero ability to
rate a doctor aside from the fact that in order to get the MD there's a
uniformly high bar. You're suggesting I should bring a copy of US News and
World Report Med School rankings to the doctors' office with me to make sure
they don't operate on the wrong knee or something? And if I'm not diligent
enough to do that, I deserve whatever happens to me?

~~~
dpatru
When people are left free, they tend to work out effective solutions. In a
free society, there would likely be a multiple authorities to judge physician
competency. The consumer would get to pick.

A big problem with doctor certification today is that doctors are graded on a
boolean scale, pass/fail. So two physicians can both be certified, but one can
be vastly better than the other, and you, as a uninformed patient, have little
way of judging. A close relative of mine has had an opportunity to assist in
many open-heart surgeries performed by several doctors. He tells me that there
is a huge difference between surgeons. One surgeon regularly completes
operations in 20 minutes with no mistakes and complications, another surgeon,
at the same medical center, takes two or three times as long, is much
"messier" (cutting things he shouldn't), and his patients have many more
complications. It's obvious to everyone in the operating room who is the
better doctor, but no one will tell patients. For patients, both doctors are
"competent." In free market, presumably there would be at least one rating
agency that would provide a more nuanced report on doctors.

Also, to get an MD, there is not a "uniformly high bar," at least there hasn't
been in the past. Medical schools discriminate in their entry requirements
based on at least race, but possibly other non-competency factors like sexual
orientation and parental alumni status. So entering medical students are not
held to a uniformly high bar. Once in medical school, student performance
diverges. Some students are at the top of their class, others are at the
bottom. Some pass the certification exams with high scores, others barely pass
after two or three attempts. Most of this information is not readily
accessible to the average healthcare consumer.

The primary aim of doctor certification seems to be to restrict the supply so
as to keep wages high, not to help consumers choose. The best solution really
is freedom, not mere "detailed technocratic tweaks" to a system designed from
the bottom-up to protect the interests of the medical profession against
competition.

~~~
jbooth
Look, empty platitudes like "more freedom" are never the answer, unless the
question is, "how do we sell people on something so crazy that they'd never
agree with it otherwise, like for example, 'giving jbooth and dpatru the
ability to sell a MD degree for 5 bucks on the street corner'"?

You may as well say the solution to the medical credentialiing problem is
pancakes.

There was a point in time where you didn't require a government certified
authority to give you the title of doctor. People decided to start certifying.
For obvious reasons.

~~~
ramanujan
There was also a time you did not need a government issued ID to get on a
plane. That also changed, for obvious reasons, but not necessarily good ones.
Fear of the unknown is not equivalent to rationality.

The worst government policies are those where "concerned mother" (= Democrat)
and "stern dad" (= Republican) stand shoulder to shoulder to protect you from
yourself. Millions of people are in regular contact with that sort of "stern +
concerned" thing in the form of the TSA, but other agencies are no less
Kafkaesque (more so in fact given that they are operating in comparative
darkness).

You can stand on a street corner and call yourself a programmer willing to
work for $5. Or for zero. That doesn't mean that GE will hire you to write the
code for their next X-ray machine. Distributed intelligence is much smarter,
and centralized evaluation much dumber, than many believe.

------
ajays
An analogous story I heard (and it could just be a rumor) was that such lack
of regulation was also why the movie industry took off in LA.

The story goes that Edison had lots of patents on movie-related tech, and
wanted to squeeze the movie makers and control them; so the movie makers ran
off to the furthest place possible from NY (where Edison was), i.e., Los
Angeles, CA. There they were free to operate without Edison and regulations.

~~~
Travis
I would love to hear more about this if you can find a source...

~~~
waterlesscloud
This is perhaps the most readable book on the founding of Hollywood.
[http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Their-Own-Invented-
Hollywood/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Their-Own-Invented-
Hollywood/dp/0385265573)

As the subtitle indicates, it has a particular focus on the early Jewish
players in the movie business, but it covers all aspects along the way.

As for the decimation of the European industry, that really happened more in
WWII than WWI. There's a good documentary mini-series on the early days of the
Euro-industry, which ends with the WWII decline.

[http://www.amazon.com/Cinema-Europe-Hollywood-Kenneth-
Branag...](http://www.amazon.com/Cinema-Europe-Hollywood-Kenneth-
Branagh/dp/6305837171/)

Apparently out of print now, but worth watching if you can find it.

------
zacharyvoase
I’ve never heard a politician speak/write in such bullshit-free terms (i.e.
plain English). I suppose that’s why he’s “minister for culture,
communications and creative industries”.

~~~
isleyaardvark
I actually think he is deliberately unclear. That's based on previous
statements he has made, plus the tendency of other politicians to give false
definitions of net neutrality.

You or I might think that this statement of his:

"My view on net neutrality is pretty simple: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I want an open internet, with a few simple guarantees - that everyone should
be able to access any legal content they want; that there should be no
discrimination against content providers on the basis of commercial rivalry;"

...is a perfect quick description of net neutrality. But you'll notice he
doesn't say that _is_ net neutrality. He says things like "Supporting net
neutrality means supporting unfettered access to the web for everyone. But
there's a problem here." and "The self-appointed defenders of the internet...
are now actually calling on governments to regulate in order to guarantee net
neutrality, or at least their version of it."

He's dissembling. Their version of NN is _the_ version of NN. It's the same
version he earlier said he supported. And this isn't the first time the
minister for communications has had to try and clarify his statements:
[http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1899719/ed-
vaizey-s...](http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1899719/ed-vaizey-
support-net-neutrality-maybe)

I'm really amazed at the pure Orwellian doublespeak that goes on when
politicians discuss NN. "I don't support net neutrality, I think instead we
should [do exactly what net neutrality calls for]."

------
antihero
The web works unregulated because (other than people in some countries), it is
the client, the consumer who is utterly free to do what they want.

This model does not apply to the real world, for instance -- if someone online
sees a site and thinks that it is terrible, there is far less overhead to
setting up an alternative.

Banks, telecoms, energy -- all this has to be regulated because the markets
are there such that there are monopolies, people are locked in, and providing
an alternative can be exceptionally difficult.

 __The market is only as free as the consumer. __

Net-neutrality ensures that freedom. If they were to allow companies to fast-
track their sites, that essentially makes the market _less_ free because it is
a barrier to competition, which gives way to monopolies.

Finally, the web isn't entirely unregulated, just the small bits of regulation
that there are, are very important in protecting the freedoms of the consumer.

~~~
maxharris
You have failed to distinguish between economic and political power.

Economic power is earned justly (by offering better/more efficient/lower
priced goods and services), and monopolies obtained and maintained this way
are desirable. They lose market share only when company stops being virtuous.

Political power, on the other hand, is always wielded unjustly. An example of
this is when someone tries to get the government to make a law that hurts
their competitors, but leaves them unscathed. _This happens all the time._
(And it explains why we license professionals, and support food cartels, etc.)
These kinds of laws are always sold to the public as measures designed to
protect them, when in reality they are just there to keep GE and the like in
power. Antitrust regulations fall on this side, too.

Entities with political power are protected by the government's (legitimate)
monopoly on the use of force. If they're not virtuous, the govenment is there
to maintain their unearned monopoly. Like any corruption, this harms living
standards and progress.

So that's why you have to distinguish between the two cases. If you don't,
you're implicitly advocating policies that punish the good for being the good.
The political solution is to separate the state and economics, just like we
separate the state and church.

~~~
stcredzero
_Economic power is earned justly (by offering better/more efficient/lower
priced goods and services),_

This often happens justly. It doesn't always happen justly. For example,
sometimes buying from merchant A is "more efficient" because merchant A has
defacto dictatorial power and a variety of ways of making your life miserable
if you buy from anyone else.

 _and monopolies obtained and maintained this way are desirable._

I am dealing with a monopoly based on the political power of a certain local
music venue owner. If the free market were in operation in this case, amateur
musicians of a certain local music scene would play jam sessions at an
entirely different pub for a number of reasons. We are somewhat held hostage
at our current venue, because of our friendships with professional musicians.
None of us dare start a session inside the loop because of the political
fallout. So we put up with the barman who doesn't care for us, his turning the
stage lights on us until we sweat (it's not a paid gig, for heaven's sake!)
and the utter inattention, ignorance, and apathy of the crowd. Our particular
town's instance of this particular music scene suffers artistically for this,
as better musicians don't show up, and some talented out of town musicians
don't want to join in.

 _They lose market share only when company stops being virtuous._

Sometimes a company stops being virtuous, and keeps market share.

~~~
maxharris
Hostage? You can't use that word in this context because it means that someone
is committing a crime. (And if that were the case, you would be talking to the
police about it!)

If you don't like what the owner of a certain venue is doing, you're free
(somewhat - the government collects taxes and does other immoral things that
limit everyone's freedom) to try to open a competing venue, where you make the
rules.

Also, to use the phrase "political fallout" when you're not talking about the
government is confusing as hell. Relationships with family and friends do not
qualify as political if we are to have a sensible discussion about this.

~~~
stcredzero
_Hostage? You can't use that word_

You're entitled to your opinion. It works like this: certain of our friends
are afraid that if we started another session, they'd never get another gig
again or soundboard job again, which would be a significant chunk of their
income.

 _Also, to use the phrase "political fallout" when you're not talking about
the government is confusing as hell._

That's either crazy talk, or a deliberate troll. There's definitely workplace
politics in groups of musicians. Somehow, I am unconcerned about you in
particular being confused.

~~~
maxharris
_You're entitled to your opinion. It works like this: certain of our friends
are afraid that if we started another session, they'd never get another gig
again or soundboard job again, which would be a significant chunk of their
income._

Losing your current job is a lot less scary than losing your life.

~~~
antihero
It's a figure of speech.

------
WalterBright
The industries in the US that are in the deepest trouble are:

1\. financial 2\. health care 3\. education

Is it a coincidence that they are the ones with the heaviest regulation and
government involvement?

Contrast that with the computer industry, which is pretty much unregulated. We
have fantastic innovation, progress, price reductions, etc.

------
njharman
The lack of corporate influence / manipulation during it's birth. Which is
really saying same thing as lack of regulation since most regulation
originates with incumbent corporate interests trying to lock in
"cartels/monopolies", lock out any new competition, and gobble up as much
public money as possible.

------
brown9-2
A minor note, but is this accurate?

 _In America, this is a massive issue, because there are only two main ISPs,
and so a lack of choice and competition._

Which two? I can name a handful of companies that provide internet access
(Time Warner, Cablevision, Cox, Verizon, etc) but perhaps they aren't "major".

~~~
jauer
I wouldn't call it accurate.

Generally there are two major providers in a area that have saturation
marketing.

Then you have CLECs and independent ISPs. They tend to focus on direct sales
to business so the public isn't as aware of their existence. Typically you'll
have 3-5 of these in a market.

After that you have the mobile data providers (Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, Cricket,
Clearwire).

------
adestefan
I'd argue that the commercial Internet is too young to be regulated.
Regulation is a reactive force and there really hasn't been much to react to,
yet. Sure there's issues with spam and porn, but neither of those industries
are heavily regulated to begin with.

------
brlewis
On the flip side, the web has been hindered by software patents. Photo and
video compression would be much better. The dominant algorithm for general web
compression encoding, gzip, was chosen not because it compresses best, but
because it appears to have steered clear of patents.

