A Simple Solution to the Network Neutrality Problem

The central argument in the current network neutrality debate is whether there should be laws or regulations forcing Internet service providers (ISPs) to treat all traffic equally – in practical terms, it means not delaying or degrading the performance of services that compete with the ISPs' own services. There are actually two parts to this argument. One is the question of whether ISPs should treat all traffic equally. The other is whether the government should be telling ISPs how to run their networks, a complex task requiring enormous understanding of subtle technical and commercial issues. Network neutrality proponents focus on the first argument, ISPs on the second.

Focusing on the combined argument -- whether the government should actually mandate network neutrality -- is in fact a formula for frustration. It almost guarantees that the debate get bogged down in ideological battles. It also ensures that every technical advance necessitates a redefinition of what should and shouldn't be allowed. But there's a much simpler solution that would ultimately work better: to require the separation of the ISPs' transport and services functions. 

Can Private Stock Markets Save Silicon Valley?

The ongoing drought in financial exits is a huge drag on Silicon Valley. Even if entrepreneurs manage to build a company, they and their investors have a hard time getting any money out of it. Opportunities for going public currently range from rare to nonexistent. The other main route to financial liquidity, acquisition, is also not reliable enough to count on.

 Such conditions make it hard to build a company in the first place. Investors hesitate to fund it, and potential employees hesitate to leave more-secure jobs to take a chance on a startup. But some participants in a panel at the recent AlwaysOn & STVP Summit at Stanford argued that secondary markets provide an answer. Such markets in essence function as private stock markets as an alternative to public ones.