Cory on Neutricide的Cory對neutricide
June 29th, 2006 | by ian | 2006年6月29日|由伊恩|Cory Doctorow, famed for his多克托羅的Cory ，著名的他 debunking of DRM technology駁斥DRM技術 , writes ，寫 an excellent article on the net neutrality issue一個很好的一篇關於淨中立問題 , or “internet freedom” as I like to call it. ，或“互聯網自由”正如我在此呼籲。 He drives home some important points:他驅動器的主頁了一些重要的幾點：
…there are few industries that owe their existence to regulation as much as the carriers. …有幾個產業，欠他們的存在，以規管多為載體。 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.這些公司龐大的企業福利燒傷，收到了非常寶貴的福音了一套權利的雙向領導到每一個地下室在美國。 Phone companies have a legal right to force you to provide access to your home for their pipes.電話公司有合法的權利，迫使你提供訪問您的主頁，為他們的喉管。 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.嘗試計算它的成本得以進入每一個美國家庭沒有一個監管機構結算您的路徑，你很快認識到，運營商應該是最後的人抱怨扭曲的影響，規例對他們的生意。
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似乎認為規例可能需要的，但他不像其他合資企業更深入的探索會有什麼需要，以便有效的監管：
The trick, then, is figuring out what we should be asking for.把戲，那麼，是搞清楚什麼，我們應要求。 Based on the above, any well-developed, plausible net neutrality regime should include:基於上述各點，任何發展良好，可信的淨中立制度應包括：
1. 1 。 A definition of “last-mile carrier,” subject to net neutrality rules一“的定義，最後一英里承運人， ”除淨的中立性規則
2. 2 。 A definition of net neutrality定義淨中立
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一個機制，為保持定義直至目前為止，與新的做法，也許snappy的一套原則可以適用於新業務
4. 4 。 A mechanism for detecting breaches of the net neutrality rules一個機制，檢測違反淨中立規則
5. 5 。 A credible enforcement agency and regime for keeping them on our side一個有公信力的執法機構和制度，使他們站在我們這一邊
Seems like a tall order to meet these requirements, “mechanistically” at least.好像某高層為了滿足這些要求， “ 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.他接著建議說，搜尋地外文明@ Home的作風，客戶端可以幫助最終用戶掌握對服務的水平，因此，保持服務供應商，誠實。 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.偉大構想和實施的可能，在本身-它會形成一個巨大的分佈式監控系統給予最高的觀點是誰搞好誰是作弊。 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.這本身就可能導致問題的服務供應商，其支持費用將焰火與過分焦慮用戶不必擔心每一個位置亮點和口吃，在他們的服務。 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?它可能會提高的障礙，進入商界以來，沒有人可以擺脫與提供一個平庸的服務…也許規例將會傷害互聯網？ Make it less accessible?使其較不易取得？ Hmmm. hmmm 。 Now I am confused.現在我很困惑。 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，讓我依傍，我相信所有的商業問題，政治和遊說外，互聯網將繼續蓬勃發展有或沒有的規管 。
The internet wasn’t planned. 互聯網是沒有計劃。 It is a network which emerges from human interaction and will continue to be driven by our collective desires and needs. 這是一個網絡的出現，從人類的互動，並會繼續推動我們的集體的願望和需要。 Anything that tries to be otherwise is not the internet. 任何嘗試，否則是不會在互聯網上。
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.規例，可能只存在界定的範圍，可以接受的行為對'網，即使如此，它打失去對抗人性。
