> From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * But, when the victim^H^H^H^H^H^H consumer is > essentially faced with a monopoly --buy the ISP's > service with whatever conditions it comes with or be > stuck with dialup-- and is not permitted to run mail > servers, has no real control over whatever filters the > ISP decides to install, etc., the situation is a lot > closer to the classic "middlebox with no control by > either endpoint" one (and produces variations on the > same arguments). ...
The major error with potentially catastrophic consequences in that that thinking is the notion of ISPs as monopolies. No ISP in the world has a monopoly on real Internet service, with the exception the bad situation in totalitarin states. > servers of any sort, etc., without "upgrading" to much > more costly "business services". Few, if any, will That many so called ISPs are not selling Internet access is as irrelevant as the fact that many grocery stores don't sell alcohol. The lies customers of those services providers are told and tell themselves about what they are buying and using are also irrelevant. The services those providers offer are some kind of limited data services that happens to use TCP/IP and portions of the Internet. I'd like to see those providers forced to label their services honestly, but that has nothing to do with monopolies, "natural" or otherwise, except that monopolies seem more likely to violate truth in labelling. That there are parts of the world where you cannot buy Internet access from local providers may disappoint you and me, but it implies nothing about monopolies on Internet access. There may be monopolies on those limited data services, but that is as irrelevant as monopolies on plain old telephone service. People whose only available data services are those non-Internet access services or POTS can always use those data services or telephones to reach a real Internet service provider. Whether or not they could afford real Internet service is also irrelevant here. > Where the disagreement you and Nathaniel are having leads, I > think inevitably except for timing, is into the state that you > assume Nathaniel is assuming: sufficient governmental > intervention to turn anyone who operates a mail relay into a > common carrier, without the "right" to filter mail except in > response to government-approved rituals. For many reasons, I > hope we never get there, regardless of its potential advantages > for controlling spam and various other sorts of bad behavior. > But we don't have a free market here, with consumer choice > options among ISPs who filter and ISPs who don't, at least with > reasonable price differentials. NO! In fact we do have a fairly free market. That many service providers choose to not provide Internet service is evidence that the market is free and that no monopolies for Internet Access prevail. That those service providers charge less than providers that do provide real Internet service is interesting is more evidence that monopolies do not exist. Perhaps governments should crack down the dishonesty of providers that mislabel their non-Internet access services, but that has nothing to do with monopolies. No one should have any sympathy for savvy technicians who choose to pay for a service that is not Internet access, don't get Internet access, and then complain about terrorist and vigilantes who keep them from getting services they've not paid for. That Internet service no longer costs several $1000/month is great but irrelevant. That it costs more than $30/month is also irrelevant. I think it's too bad that Internet access is not cheaper than it is, but just now I'd rather worry about the costs of food and water for most people on Earth. Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
