gubug  

Re: [GUBUG] Storm ahead

Lonnie Olson
Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:27:05 -0700

Thank you, Anthony, for starting this great debate. Keep the mailing list alive baby. 

On Jul 11, 2006, at 3:40 AM, Anthony Chavez wrote:

One of the latest efforts to push net neutrality is S. 2917.  With
regard to maliciousness and protocol-based prioritization, sec. 12(a)
reads (emphasis added):

        (a) Duty of Broadband Service Providers.---

        With respect to any broadband service offered to the public,
        each broadband service provider shall---

        (1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair,
            or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband
            service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer ANY
            LAWFUL CONTENT, application, or service made available via
            the Internet;
While this sounds good, it could easily be misinterpreted. When any traffic is prioritized, other traffic is "degraded" somewhat. The "lawful content" clause sounds good, but since, according to law, most spam is lawful, this bill would make it illegal for me to do *any* kind of spam filtering. Spam filtering is blocking and/or discriminating against the ability of a spammer to use broadband service to send email (often lawful content) made available via the Internet.
Of course this isn't meant to make spam filtering illegal. However, it can be interpreted to say so. Imagine the lawsuits of spammers against ISPs. 



        ...

        (5) only prioritize content, applications, or services
            accessed by a user that is made available via the Internet
            within the network of such broadband service provider
            BASED ON THE TYPE OF CONTENT, APPLICATIONS, OR SERVICES
            AND THE LEVEL OF SERVICE PURCHASED BY THE USER, WITHOUT
            CHARGE FOR SUCH PRIORITIZATION;


This is where our free market will force the hand of the large
telcos.  For example:  ArosNet has two connections to Tier-1
providers (MCI,XO).  If my customers were complaining about blocked
or degraded traffic to Google when routed over MCI, I would simply
drop MCI and pick up another connection to someone else.  MCI loses
my business, loses money, etc.


I fail to see how QoS and the ability to switch carriers are related.
Can you elaborate?
Sure. Here is an example. I have two upstream connections right now. MCI and XO. Without network neutrality, it would be legal for MCI to limit bandwidth to Google to something really slow. Their intent might be to extort money from Google. This is obviously not very nice.
However, this action would not be smart for MCI to take. Me, and many other MCI customers would follow a similar scenario. 1. One of my customers complain that Google is very slow on their DSL connection, but not slow on their friends Xmission DSL. 2. My tech support does some trouble shooting and finds that traffic to google is limited and slow. 3. Problem escalates to me. I find that the limit is occurring over the MCI link. 
4. I immediately route all traffic to Google over my XO connection.
5. Start shopping for a new uplink.
6. Buy new uplink from a competing carrier.
7. Disconnect the MCI link.
8. MCI loses a customer, and revenue.
It is easy to see that free market competition can prevent these kinds of extortion. Many people dismiss this argument saying that many individuals don't have a lot of options available to them. This is mostly bogus.
In any area where DSL service is available, customers always have many choices. In the Salt Lake area they can choose Qwest, MSN, Xmission, ArosNet, etc, etc. Since the ISP is in competition with others, the ISPs carriers have competition, hence protection.
In an area where only Cable is available, there is usually some limited competition in the form of wireless broadband.
I think, instead of wasting all this effort on enforcing neutrality through law, we should be focusing on enforcing it through competition. Write laws to promote competition. Seek out new ways to promote competition like: 
1. Establishing community networks like Utopia and iProvo.
2. Investigate Qwest's slow DSL expansion (is it on the up an up?)
3. Investigate ways to break up the Cable monopoly
4. Regulate Cable companies if no solutions to #3 can be found.
Let's not penalize all ISPs and Internet connection providers. Let's focus on breaking the monopolies to promote competition. 


I will not blindly support Save the Internet, unless I can see what
specific provisions they are asking for, or rejecting.  My support
either way will be on a per bill basis.  In many ways I agree with
Pete Ashdown (http://vote.peteashdown.org/wiki/index.php/
Internet_Neutrality) on the topic.  He understands what it means to
run an ISP.


Pete's a great guy, and I respect him tremendously.  I agree with him
on most issues, and don't dispute his ability to run an ISP.  Pete's
Wiki entry on the subject raises some excellent points, and I find
myself largely agreeing with him as well.

But being a strong proponent of critical thinking, asking anyone to
support anything "blindly" is definitely not my style.  Your per-bill
stance is a good one, Lonnie, and I share it.  But if your fear is
that supporting an organization such as this is a "blanket" approach
to politics, bear in mind that they are the *only* group thus far that
has garnered support and momentum, or so one would surmise from
Googling "net neutrality."

Their "statement of principles" and FAQ are at least worth reading:

http://savetheinternet.com/=principles

http://savetheinternet.com/=faq
I read from those two links. It is way too vague for me to support them. In the FAQ 
(http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#threat)
They mention 4 examples. 2 of which happened in Canada. Telus and "a big Canadian cable TV company". Telus is a huge monopoly in Canada, they have few restrictions like the US has on our phone companies. Canadian cable companies are probably as monopolistic as are the US counterparts. As I already said, breaking up monopolies wherever we can, or regulating when we can't is the most important step.
Of the other 2 examples, the blocking incident by AOL was not intentional. I myself have been victim many times of AOL's unintentional blocking. Their system is badly damaged. The Madison River ISP blocking was solved by the FCC already, no new laws are needed. Not to mention the fact that any Madison River customer could always switch to another ISP. 

(http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#market)
"The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband access market. And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there will be nowhere else for consumers to turn."
This number is dubious at best. On one hand *every* connection, broadband or otherwise, is somehow a downstream customer of a telephone or cable company. That is how the internet works. On the other hand DSL users are customers to two separate companies, a phone company for the line (already regulated), and an ISP for the internet connection. Sometimes these two companies are the same, sometimes not. They don't have to be the same. Net neutrality has zero effect on the phone company for DSL users. Just the ISP. There are many ISPs for any DSL customer to choose from. 


The only other resource I have found, apart from a collection of news
articles and blog postings, is the following Wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

I find it somewhat humorous that the article's neutrality regarding
this topic is disputed (at the time of this posting).  Hopefully, that
will be resolved soon. ;-)

I welcome any pointers to additional information or resources on the
subject, and would even give debate on this issue my blessing as it's
BSD-related.


Oh, right.  By the way, the best ISPs are run on BSD.  :)

In summary,
1. I am *for* net neutrality, but *against* new blanket laws to enforce it. 2. I am *against* any new laws that would damage our current state of neutrality. 3. I won't support savetheinternet.com due to it's vague and misleading principles. 4. I prefer solving the monopoly problem, than adding legal complexity which could reduce independent ISPs rights. 5. In most issues I am a very liberal Democrat, but I would rather you keep your laws off my pipes. :) 

--lonnie

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
gubug mailing list
gubug@gubug.org
https://gubug.org/mailman/listinfo/gubug