Nicholas Carr has a good review of Jonathan Zittrain’s article, The Generative Internet. Zittrain’s article is a must read, though I feel bad suggesting that, having still not gotten to Yochai Benkler new book.

I wonder who bears the costs of accidents or negligence at the edges of the neutral network? Even with overwhelming benefits, there’s clearly a cost to having new innovation at the edges of the network. I think distribution of that cost is a very appropriate question, though I’m not at all sure what the answer should be.

A reckless or careless user behind an unfiltered, high speed, network of the future may be able to cause a great deal of damage to surrounding services and networks. A simple step towards doing this would be to block relaying and mail servers from end user accounts. It’s no surprise that many service providers do this, though a mix of terms of service and actual technical provisions.

Running your own mail service could be a highly generative act. Although most of the technical infrastructure of Internet mail is mature and well-developed, users experimenting with different approaches and uses of these systems will certain expose new, creative and valuable functionality. But as we see above, running you own mail service could be a highly pernicious act, consuming limited bandwidth, preventing valuable communications, and driving up administrative costs for ISPs and other users.

Gated communities offer increased security, for a price. That price is more than just the cost of living within the gate, but a variety of social costs. Gated communities, and modern suburban developments, often impose a variety of restrictive covenants on the lots within the subdivision. Owners of homes within the community may be forced to pay dues, cut their grass, or even paint their homes in approved colors. They may even be subject to new rules, created by simple majorities of the community. And these rules have financial teeth! Social control limits options, while providing at least an image of security both physical and investing. The trade off is attractive to many.

Internet users will attempt to reduce the burdens of misbehaved applications, users, and malignant innovation. Perhaps computers will become more restricted in functionality. Perhaps networks will become more aggressive in filtering and regulating traffic, taking users behind gated communities. But I submit that a driving force behind these shifts is a misallocation of the costs of accidents and negligence at the edges of the neutral network.

In tort law, society has already struggled with the rights and responsibilities needed to preserve individual autonomy and free action, while deterring undesirable or destructive behavior. Tort law could, perhaps, serve as a check against antisocial network behaviors, though not without changes to both tort law and the network itself. Identity would be critical for responsibility.

Posted by M in Net Neutrality, Internet Policy, Interesting Link