Several of your points aside, I would say that this is the crux of the argument for you: "Freedom, not performance is the metric by which networks need to be judged anyway." I don't necessarily agree with this sentence. And I think that as long as we don't agree on this one sentence, we can't possibly agree on anything that you extrapolate from that sentence.
In other words, I disagree with the very foundation of your argument, and so, to me, any argument built on that foundation is a moot point. :) -- Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 http://www.puryear-it.com Author, "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" http://www.puryear-it.com/pubs/linux-unix-best-practices Identity Management, LDAP, and Linux Integration willhill wrote: > Personal insults don't contribute anything useful, Dustin, and you should > know > better. I sound the way I do because I care about freedom, which is the > primary attraction of free software. > > Your arguments for blocking port 25 are interesting (indeed, I have > subscribed > to your newsletter), but they are your own. Cox uses other reasons, mostly > based on the inadequate security of Microsoft operating systems: > > http://tinyurl.com/ytjer4 > > If Cox has greed as a motivator, they don't mention it and I don't think it's > paid off for them. > > Charging different amounts for different bits on the same pipe is both > technically and morally wrong. The legal theory of common carriers is > explained in nauseating detail here: > > http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/common_carrier.htm > > but you don't have to delve into laws made for railroads and shipping to > understand the issues. When I pay for bandwith, I should be able to use it > as I chose. One bit is not different than another. Cox's business plans > cost twice as much to start and provide less bandwith than residential plans. > > > http://www.coxbusiness.com/pdfs/cbi_gl3p.pdf > > Keeping me from using bits that I pay for is just wrong and I don't think > it's > been a commercial success either. You have showed me cheaper hosting options > that have better bandwith. > > Non free networks will eventually destroy free software because it inhibits > people's ability to cooperate and share their changes. If the big ISPs get > away with this on home networks, it's only a matter of time before they do so > elsewhere. > > Arguments about ISP choice are spurious in the heavily regulated duopoly > system that's been set up. The choices are equally non free and Cox, from > what I've read, is one of the better providers. The people who set it up did > not really care about user freedom and the result is something that's > lurching back to the bad old Ma Bell days. There are few actual choices here > in Baton Rouge and fewer in other places. > >>From a technical standpoint, networks of unequal peers are more expensive and > less reliable than the internet is designed to be. > > http://www.isen.com/papers/Dawnstupid.html > > You really can't have government regulation both ways. If the public > servitude is regulated, it needs to serve the public not just the interests > of a few companies. As the US falls further behind the rest of the world in > network performance, it's more apparent that the recent regulatory framework > has not delivered what it should. Even Cringely noticed > > http://www.newnetworks.com/BroadbandScandalIntro.htm > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html > > Freedom, not performance is the metric by which networks need to be judged > anyway. A fancy network that does not do what you want is a bad deal at any > price. > > Others have claimed that packets and frequency hopping obsolete ground lines > all together and that there's really enough radio frequency spectrum to meet > everyone's needs if it were not wastefully allocated to ancient broadcast > methods. > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/02/1251233&mode=thread&tid=95 > > Finally, I would not have a problem with the inadequacies of other people's > spam filters if I was allowed to run my own mail server. It may be a tough > nut for you, Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo to crack, but the free software world > is bigger than all of that. Yahoo has a button that promisses to whitelist > individual senders, but I don't need their help. This is something most > modern mail clients can do, with or without some "smart" hosts help. Don't > those filters violate your belief in separating services and servers? Even > if there is no solution and the internet will never be any better than the M$ > botnet swamp it is, the freedom to run my own mail server will save me from > someone else's "tough nut", "I know better than you do" censorship of my > mail. > > If you tell me again that it's right for others to filter my internet > connection and email, I will tell you the above again. The more I learn, the > more the story is the same. > > On Sunday 23 September 2007 4:53 pm, Dustin Puryear wrote: >> 2. On the argument that port blocking is similar to censorship or is in >> someway wrong, I disagree. Cox and others offer a business class service >> for more money that does not have these restrictions. I have no issue >> with segmentation of service levels based on price. It's like paying >> more for a car with leather seats. Don't like Cox? Go with AT&T. Don't >> like AT&T? Go with Broadband IP. Don't like Broadband IP? Go with >> <insert the several other choices you do have>. >> >> 3. On the argument that provider-controlled spam filtering is >> censorship, well, frankly, that's just silly. For one thing, offering >> per-user spam filtering control down to the training level is expensive >> in terms of implementation and day-to-day management cost. I HELPED >> BUILD a spam filtering appliance for a vendor as part of a development >> consulting project. Trust me, this is a difficult nut to crack, and a >> generalized spam filter goes a long way toward reducing spam and keeping >> a provider's cost down. > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > General at brlug.net > http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
