Cory on Neutricide的Cory对neutricide
June 29th, 2006 | by ian | 2006年6月29日|由伊恩|Cory Doctorow, famed for his多克托罗的Cory ，著名的他 debunking of DRM technology驳斥DRM技术 , writes ，写 an excellent article on the net neutrality issue一个很好的一篇关于净中立问题 , or “internet freedom” as I like to call it. ，或“互联网自由”正如我在此呼吁。 He drives home some important points:他驱动器的主页了一些重要的几点：
…there are few industries that owe their existence to regulation as much as the carriers. …有几个产业，欠他们的存在，以规管多为载体。 These companies are gigantic corporate welfare bums, having received the invaluable boon of a set of rights-of-way leading into every basement in America.这些公司庞大的企业福利烧伤，收到了非常宝贵的福音了一套权利的双向领导到每一个地下室在美国。 Phone companies have a legal right to force you to provide access to your home for their pipes.电话公司有合法的权利，迫使你提供访问您的主页，为他们的喉管。 Try calculating what it would cost to get into every US home without a regulator clearing your path, and you quickly realize that the carriers should be the last people complaining about the distorting effect of regulation on their business.尝试计算它的成本得以进入每一个美国家庭没有一个监管机构结算您的路径，你很快认识到，运营商应该是最后的人抱怨扭曲的影响，规例对他们的生意。
Cory seems to think regulation may be required but unlike others he ventures deeper and explores what would be needed to allow for effective regulation:的Cory似乎认为规例可能需要的，但他不像其他合资企业更深入的探索会有什么需要，以便有效的监管：
The trick, then, is figuring out what we should be asking for.把戏，那么，是搞清楚什么，我们应要求。 Based on the above, any well-developed, plausible net neutrality regime should include:基于上述各点，任何发展良好，可信的净中立制度应包括：
1. 1 。 A definition of “last-mile carrier,” subject to net neutrality rules一“的定义，最后一英里承运人， ”除净的中立性规则
2. 2 。 A definition of net neutrality定义净中立
3. 3 。 A mechanism for keeping the definition up to date with new practices, perhaps a snappy set of principles that can be applied to new businesses一个机制，为保持定义直至目前为止，与新的做法，也许snappy的一套原则可以适用于新业务
4. 4 。 A mechanism for detecting breaches of the net neutrality rules一个机制，检测违反净中立规则
5. 5 。 A credible enforcement agency and regime for keeping them on our side一个有公信力的执法机构和制度，使他们站在我们这一边
Seems like a tall order to meet these requirements, “mechanistically” at least.好像某高层为了满足这些要求， “ mechanistically ”至少。 He goes on to suggest that a SETI@home style client could help the end users keep tabs on the level of service and therefore keep service providers honest.他接着建议说，搜寻地外文明@ Home的作风，客户端可以帮助最终用户掌握对服务的水平，因此，保持服务供应商，诚实。 Great idea and probably implementable in itself - it would form a giant distributed monitoring system giving maximum viewpoints of who is doing a good job and who is cheating.伟大构想和实施的可能，在本身-它会形成一个巨大的分布式监控系统给予最高的观点是谁搞好谁是作弊。 This in itself could lead to issues for service providers whose support costs would skyrocket with overly anxious users worrying about every blip and stutter in their service.这本身就可能导致问题的服务供应商，其支持费用将焰火与过分焦虑用户不必担心每一个位置亮点和口吃，在他们的服务。 And it would probably raise the barrier of entry into the business since noone could get away with providing a mediocre service…Perhaps regulation would hurt the internet?它可能会提高的障碍，进入商界以来，没有人可以摆脱与提供一个平庸的服务…也许规例将会伤害互联网？ Make it less accessible?使其较不易取得？ Hmmm. hmmm 。 Now I am confused.现在我很困惑。 So let me fall back on my belief that all business issues, politics and lobbying aside, the internet will continue to thrive with or without regulation .因此，让我依傍，我相信所有的商业问题，政治和游说外，互联网将继续蓬勃发展有或没有的规管 。
The internet wasn’t planned. 互联网是没有计划。 It is a network which emerges from human interaction and will continue to be driven by our collective desires and needs. 这是一个网络的出现，从人类的互动，并会继续推动我们的集体的愿望和需要。 Anything that tries to be otherwise is not the internet. 任何尝试，否则是不会在互联网上。
Regulation can probably only exist to define the bounds of acceptable behaviour on the ‘net, and even then it fights a losing battle against human nature.规例，可能只存在界定的范围，可以接受的行为对'网，即使如此，它打失去对抗人性。
