Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
Shortly after my last post on this topic, I spent some time reading the notices on the bulletin board outside the market in our little mountain town. One of them asked if people in remote mountain areas are tired of slow dial-up Internet speeds. The county has set up a Line Extension Fund to defray Comcast's costs in providing high speed Internet to mountain neighborhoods. After describing what people needed to do to request high speed access, the notice went on to say that Comcast was under no obligation to inform the public about this fund. After the June 2014 deadline, Comcast can just pocket the remains of the fund without an obligation to spend it on remote access. This morning, I read an article on DARPA's (that's the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) work in developing drones to provide on-demand wireless access to remote areas of the world. DARPA is the US government body that invented the Internet in the first place, and they continue to do cutting edge research on computing, networking, security, and other Internet-related areas. I am not sure whether DARPA's site is available outside the US, but this page lists a variety of the research projects that DARPA is working on: http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases.aspx Among the current DARPA research topics that might find their way into commercial Internet are: * Hollow-core fiber optic cable optimization for speed and reliability. * Domain-specific search. * Quantum computing. * International interoperational mobile networking. * Photonic delay in optical waveguides. * Terahertz vacuum amplifier for solid state electronics. * MEM sensor optimization. * Jam-resistant radio technologies. * More stable ytterbium atomic clocks. * Secure, private Internet and cloud computing. Many of DARPA's technologies are released directly into the public domain. --hmm
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
I dont see much of it referenced in the current debate. At least no rational economic statements as opposed to noisy activists with a distaste for big telecom. Let me read through those papers before I comment further. Thanks for pointing me to them On 15 March 2014 11:20:52 am Pranesh Prakash the.solips...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net wrote: The Crawford and Wu model of public utility doesn't provide any sensible basis for regulation that I can see, and the model has shifted significantly from the old sense of net neutrality which once related to CLECs and unbundling of services, Suresh, you're completely ignoring the wealth of economic research that has been done around the idea of essential facilities / public utilities. See, for instance, Suzanne Scotchmer's paper on this topic last year, before she passed away unexpectedly earlier this year: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2407071
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
I'm addressing some of the links Suresh forwarded to the list. Bennett: If we’ve learned anything at all about from the history of Internet-as-utility, it’s that this strained analogy only applies in cases where there is no existing infrastructure, and probably ends best when a publicly-financed project is sold (or at least leased) to a private company for upgrades and management. We should be suspicious of projects aimed at providing Wi-Fi mesh because they’re slow as molasses on a winter’s day. I don’t see any examples of long-term success in the publicly-owned and operated networking space. And I also don’t see any examples of publicly-owned and operated Internet service providers doing any of the heavy lifting in the maintenance of the Internet protocols, a never-ending process that’s vital to the continuing growth of the Internet. One of the oft-overlooked inconvenient facts about the Internet is that it was created by the US military to meet various Cold War objectives. The US government has poured huge amounts of cash into the Internet over the past 50 years. Much of the early work on protocols and structures was done at public universities on the military's dime. The Internet started as a public works project, and public money continues to play a significant role. During the first decade I was online (1976-1986), it was widely understood that the Internet was to be used for military and research purposes. It was not open to commercial purposes. Advertising was not permitted, and it was generally understood that we were online as guests of the military and the universities. The innovations that made the Internet possible did not originate at ATT. ATT, like any other monopoly, views innovation with extreme distrust and stifles it whenever possible. Innovation disrupts their business model, and threatens their control over our communications. ATT fought broadband every step of the way, and lapped up a lot of dollars from the public trough to expand its fiber network to make broadband possible. The cable companies were late entrants to the Internet game, once they realized that they had the broadband cable in place already and just had to figure out the upstream messaging part. The broadband providers, like the railway robber barons of the 19th century American West, are political entrepreneurs. Much of the heavy lifting was done for them at public expense, and now they act like they built the whole thing by themselves and are perfectly entitled to run things just the way they like it. They cry foul when the very government that helped them build the infrastructure with public money wants to regulate the self-same infrastructure. Sherman: Pursuing a public utility model while also desiring competition are fundamentally contradictory goals. Utilities are designed not to compete. Do you, or does anyone you know, have a choice of providers for water, sewage or electricity? My second question would be: is there anyone in the technology world who sees public utilities as a model for innovation? A 1.5 megabit connection (T1) was an unimaginable luxury when I started in tech in the mid-90′s. It was for well-funded companies only. Today, it is a low-end consumer connection and costs around 80% less. Has your sewage service followed a similar trajectory? A public utility is designed to be “good enough” and little more. There is no need, and little room, for differentiation or progress. Your electricity service is essentially unchanged from 20 years ago, and will look the same 10 years from now. Broadband, on the other hand, requires constant innovation if we are to move forward — and it has been delivering it, even if we desire more. Public utilities exist because there are certain services where the infrastructure leads to a natural monopoly. Having these services in private hands created numerous disasters (the history of London's private water companies is instructive here, as is the history of the railroads in California). Thus, these services tend to be either publicly run or heavily regulated. In my experience, publicly run services tend to be cheaper and better than the privately run monopolies. Privately run monopolies are always trying to get one-up on their regulators and the public, while public utilities can get on with the job at hand. Innovation is an interesting thing. Warfare (the business of governments, last time I checked) has been responsible for a great deal of innovation. Public investment in basic research also tends to foster a lot of innovation. People playing around with new toys also leads to a tremendous amount of innovation. Monopoly corporations, on the other hand, do not tend to innovate. They are sticks-in-the-mud heavily invested in maintaining the status quo. Moreover, monopoly corporations often successfully stifle innovation by
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
Having, in India, started off with an internet which was exclusively a government monopoly and only turned over to private enterprise some years down the line, I would say that making it a utility is something that most people here, given the local conditions, would resent, Innovations were driven by bell labs, not exactly att, some on government funded projects to be sure. But increasingly, down the line, by ISPs and their peers in the market. And by content providers, and by CDNs, and by various other entities that haven't ever received a dime in government funding of research. The Crawford and Wu model of public utility doesn't provide any sensible basis for regulation that I can see, and the model has shifted significantly from the old sense of net neutrality which once related to CLECs and unbundling of services, I have seen claims that the broadband charges in the uk are like two pounds for some insanely fast amount, but then there are surcharges of ten to fifteen pounds more for the local loop costs etc. So that unbundling certainly doesn't cost you less as it makes the pricing transparent and gives you market freedom to switch providers much easier, without the trouble of pulling fresh copper or fiber to your home each time you switch (which currently is not the case here in India, go figure) --srs (iPad) On 06-Mar-2014, at 0:06, Heather Madrone heat...@madrone.com wrote: I'm addressing some of the links Suresh forwarded to the list. Bennett: If we’ve learned anything at all about from the history of Internet-as-utility, it’s that this strained analogy only applies in cases where there is no existing infrastructure, and probably ends best when a publicly-financed project is sold (or at least leased) to a private company for upgrades and management. We should be suspicious of projects aimed at providing Wi-Fi mesh because they’re slow as molasses on a winter’s day. I don’t see any examples of long-term success in the publicly-owned and operated networking space. And I also don’t see any examples of publicly-owned and operated Internet service providers doing any of the heavy lifting in the maintenance of the Internet protocols, a never-ending process that’s vital to the continuing growth of the Internet. One of the oft-overlooked inconvenient facts about the Internet is that it was created by the US military to meet various Cold War objectives. The US government has poured huge amounts of cash into the Internet over the past 50 years. Much of the early work on protocols and structures was done at public universities on the military's dime. The Internet started as a public works project, and public money continues to play a significant role. During the first decade I was online (1976-1986), it was widely understood that the Internet was to be used for military and research purposes. It was not open to commercial purposes. Advertising was not permitted, and it was generally understood that we were online as guests of the military and the universities. The innovations that made the Internet possible did not originate at ATT. ATT, like any other monopoly, views innovation with extreme distrust and stifles it whenever possible. Innovation disrupts their business model, and threatens their control over our communications. ATT fought broadband every step of the way, and lapped up a lot of dollars from the public trough to expand its fiber network to make broadband possible. The cable companies were late entrants to the Internet game, once they realized that they had the broadband cable in place already and just had to figure out the upstream messaging part. The broadband providers, like the railway robber barons of the 19th century American West, are political entrepreneurs. Much of the heavy lifting was done for them at public expense, and now they act like they built the whole thing by themselves and are perfectly entitled to run things just the way they like it. They cry foul when the very government that helped them build the infrastructure with public money wants to regulate the self-same infrastructure. Sherman: Pursuing a public utility model while also desiring competition are fundamentally contradictory goals. Utilities are designed not to compete. Do you, or does anyone you know, have a choice of providers for water, sewage or electricity? My second question would be: is there anyone in the technology world who sees public utilities as a model for innovation? A 1.5 megabit connection (T1) was an unimaginable luxury when I started in tech in the mid-90′s. It was for well-funded companies only. Today, it is a low-end consumer connection and costs around 80% less. Has your sewage service followed a similar trajectory? A public utility is designed to be “good enough” and little more. There is no need, and little room, for
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Having, in India, started off with an internet which was exclusively a government monopoly and only turned over to private enterprise some years down the line, I would say that making it a utility is something that most people here, given the local conditions, would resent, I agree that any attempt to socialize the Internet would have people screaming bloody murder, but I do believe that the Internet is a utility. In most places, it appears to be a privately-run utility. In some places, it is a government-controlled monopoly where free speech is stifled. In the places where it seems to work best, it seems to be heavily regulated. I do think we're going to see more cities providing free wireless access in high density areas, like New York City does. Innovations were driven by bell labs, not exactly att, some on government funded projects to be sure. But increasingly, down the line, by ISPs and their peers in the market. And by content providers, and by CDNs, and by various other entities that haven't ever received a dime in government funding of research. There have been a lot of players, for sure. Can you help me out, though? While I am aware of many useful things that came out of Bell Labs, I can't think of a single Internet protocol that originated there. Were you thinking of something in particular? The Internet owes a few nods to XEROX PARC (XNS, the precursor of TCP, comes to mind), but I'm drawing a blank for key Internet technologies that came out of Bell Labs. A technology company in the US that has never received a dime of government money would be an odd duck indeed. Certain branches of the US government buy one of everything. --hmm
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
Municipal wifi has a long and checkered history .. And city governments aren't the best funded organizations on the planet is the trouble. Bell labs innovation was pre internet but then Unix did originate there. The internet isn't all networks. (And by the way see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc4ROCJYbm0 for some fun) And there's a difference between federally funded research and having Uncle Sam as a customer when you bid for federal contracts. I hope I am not splitting too many hairs when I say that, --srs (iPad) On 06-Mar-2014, at 8:13, Heather Madrone heat...@madrone.com wrote: Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Having, in India, started off with an internet which was exclusively a government monopoly and only turned over to private enterprise some years down the line, I would say that making it a utility is something that most people here, given the local conditions, would resent, I agree that any attempt to socialize the Internet would have people screaming bloody murder, but I do believe that the Internet is a utility. In most places, it appears to be a privately-run utility. In some places, it is a government-controlled monopoly where free speech is stifled. In the places where it seems to work best, it seems to be heavily regulated. I do think we're going to see more cities providing free wireless access in high density areas, like New York City does. Innovations were driven by bell labs, not exactly att, some on government funded projects to be sure. But increasingly, down the line, by ISPs and their peers in the market. And by content providers, and by CDNs, and by various other entities that haven't ever received a dime in government funding of research. There have been a lot of players, for sure. Can you help me out, though? While I am aware of many useful things that came out of Bell Labs, I can't think of a single Internet protocol that originated there. Were you thinking of something in particular? The Internet owes a few nods to XEROX PARC (XNS, the precursor of TCP, comes to mind), but I'm drawing a blank for key Internet technologies that came out of Bell Labs. A technology company in the US that has never received a dime of government money would be an odd duck indeed. Certain branches of the US government buy one of everything. --hmm
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
That is probably the most, to use the same language, bs point of them all. Mostly parroted by a school of net neutrality people (Susan Crawford, Tim Wu etc) that really should know better, but that doesn't quite stop them. Come to think of it, they too like to use overblown and soundbite laden (though rather less crude) language in multiple blogs and press quotes, as tweet bait likely, for all that they're professors of law and you would expect more precise language from them. Still much the same memes as this guy trots out .. Extortion, Internet tax etc etc when they talk about, say the recent netflix comcast paid peering deal. And it has more disturbing consequences too than you would care to think about. http://techliberation.com/2008/11/19/the-perils-of-thinking-of-broadband-as-a-public-utility/ --srs (iPad) On 05-Mar-2014, at 8:46, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: Via Dave Farber's IP list. Ignoring many of the talking points in the rant below, the claim I am most interested in is The internet is a utility, just like water and electricity. I am really interested in the thoughts of silklisters on this, especially folks like Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash, who work in the policy area; Cory Doctorow, who ceaselessly educates anyone who will listen on these issues; and divers others. Udhay -- Forwarded message -- From: *Dewayne Hendricks* dewa...@warpspeed.com Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The internet is fucked To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net dewayne-...@warpspeed.com [Note: This item comes from friend Tim Pozar. DLH] From: Tim Pozar po...@lns.com Subject: The internet is fucked Date: March 4, 2014 at 8:13:00 PST To: Dewayne Hendricks dewa...@warpspeed.com POLICY LAW The internet is fucked By Nilay Patel Feb 25 2014 http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked Here's a simple truth: the internet has radically changed the world. Over the course of the past 20 years, the idea of networking all the world's computers has gone from a research science pipe dream to a necessary condition of economic and social development, from government and university labs to kitchen tables and city streets. We are all travelers now, desperate souls searching for a signal to connect us all. It is awesome. And we're fucking everything up. Massive companies like ATT and Comcast have spent the first two months of 2014 boldly announcing plans to close and control the internet through additional fees, pay-to-play schemes, and sheer brutal size -- all while the legal rules designed to protect against these kinds of abuses were struck down in court for basically making too much sense. Broadband providers represent a threat to internet openness, concluded Judge David Tatel in Verizon's case against the FCC's Open Internet order, adding that the FCC had provided ample evidence of internet companies abusing their market power and had made a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made. Verizon argued strenuously, but had offered the court no persuasive reason to question that judgement. Then Tatel cut the FCC off at the knees for making a rather half-hearted argument in support of its authority to properly police these threats and vacated the rules protecting the open internet, surprising observers on both sides of the industry and sending new FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler into a tailspin of empty promises seemingly designed to disappoint everyone. I expected the anti-blocking rule to be upheld, National Cable and Telecommunications Association president and CEO Michael Powell told me after the ruling was issued. Powell was chairman of the FCC under George W. Bush; he issued the first no-blocking rules. Judge Tatel basically said the Commission didn't argue it properly. In the meantime, the companies that control the internet have continued down a dark path, free of any oversight or meaningful competition to check their behavior. In January, ATT announced a new sponsored data plan that would dramatically alter the fierce one-click-away competition that's thus far characterized the internet. Earlier this month, Comcast announced plans to merge with Time Warner Cable, creating an internet service behemoth that will serve 40 percent of Americans in 19 of the 20 biggest markets with virtually no rivals. And after months of declining Netflix performance on Comcast's network, the two companies announced a new paid peering arrangement on Sunday, which will see Netflix pay Comcast for better access to its customers, a capitulation Netflix has been trying to avoid for years. Paid peering arrangements are common among the network companies that connect the backbones of the internet, but consumer companies like Netflix have traditionally remained out of the fray -- and since there's no oversight or transparency into the terms of the deal,
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
This one too http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/just-another-utility/ --srs (iPad) On 05-Mar-2014, at 8:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net wrote: That is probably the most, to use the same language, bs point of them all. Mostly parroted by a school of net neutrality people (Susan Crawford, Tim Wu etc) that really should know better, but that doesn't quite stop them. Come to think of it, they too like to use overblown and soundbite laden (though rather less crude) language in multiple blogs and press quotes, as tweet bait likely, for all that they're professors of law and you would expect more precise language from them. Still much the same memes as this guy trots out .. Extortion, Internet tax etc etc when they talk about, say the recent netflix comcast paid peering deal. And it has more disturbing consequences too than you would care to think about. http://techliberation.com/2008/11/19/the-perils-of-thinking-of-broadband-as-a-public-utility/ --srs (iPad) On 05-Mar-2014, at 8:46, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: Via Dave Farber's IP list. Ignoring many of the talking points in the rant below, the claim I am most interested in is The internet is a utility, just like water and electricity. I am really interested in the thoughts of silklisters on this, especially folks like Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash, who work in the policy area; Cory Doctorow, who ceaselessly educates anyone who will listen on these issues; and divers others. Udhay -- Forwarded message -- From: *Dewayne Hendricks* dewa...@warpspeed.com Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The internet is fucked To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net dewayne-...@warpspeed.com [Note: This item comes from friend Tim Pozar. DLH] From: Tim Pozar po...@lns.com Subject: The internet is fucked Date: March 4, 2014 at 8:13:00 PST To: Dewayne Hendricks dewa...@warpspeed.com POLICY LAW The internet is fucked By Nilay Patel Feb 25 2014 http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked Here's a simple truth: the internet has radically changed the world. Over the course of the past 20 years, the idea of networking all the world's computers has gone from a research science pipe dream to a necessary condition of economic and social development, from government and university labs to kitchen tables and city streets. We are all travelers now, desperate souls searching for a signal to connect us all. It is awesome. And we're fucking everything up. Massive companies like ATT and Comcast have spent the first two months of 2014 boldly announcing plans to close and control the internet through additional fees, pay-to-play schemes, and sheer brutal size -- all while the legal rules designed to protect against these kinds of abuses were struck down in court for basically making too much sense. Broadband providers represent a threat to internet openness, concluded Judge David Tatel in Verizon's case against the FCC's Open Internet order, adding that the FCC had provided ample evidence of internet companies abusing their market power and had made a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made. Verizon argued strenuously, but had offered the court no persuasive reason to question that judgement. Then Tatel cut the FCC off at the knees for making a rather half-hearted argument in support of its authority to properly police these threats and vacated the rules protecting the open internet, surprising observers on both sides of the industry and sending new FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler into a tailspin of empty promises seemingly designed to disappoint everyone. I expected the anti-blocking rule to be upheld, National Cable and Telecommunications Association president and CEO Michael Powell told me after the ruling was issued. Powell was chairman of the FCC under George W. Bush; he issued the first no-blocking rules. Judge Tatel basically said the Commission didn't argue it properly. In the meantime, the companies that control the internet have continued down a dark path, free of any oversight or meaningful competition to check their behavior. In January, ATT announced a new sponsored data plan that would dramatically alter the fierce one-click-away competition that's thus far characterized the internet. Earlier this month, Comcast announced plans to merge with Time Warner Cable, creating an internet service behemoth that will serve 40 percent of Americans in 19 of the 20 biggest markets with virtually no rivals. And after months of declining Netflix performance on Comcast's network, the two companies announced a new paid peering arrangement on Sunday, which will see Netflix pay Comcast for better access to its customers, a capitulation Netflix has been trying to avoid for years. Paid peering arrangements are common among the network companies that connect the backbones of
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I pretty much totally agree. The triumverate of Internet rules we need are: * Net Neutrality (either by forcing line-sharing like in the UK, or through direct regulation of carriers on the basis that they receive a massive public subsidy in the form of rights-of-way) * Vuln neutrality: an end to rules like the DMCA (and its global cousins) that prohibit reporting bugs * Rule of law: an end to censorship without court orders (DMCA takedown notices) and without penalty for abuse. Filing a bad-faith takedown should be criminally punishable as perjury, should be grounds for dismissal from the bar (if applicable), and should also be grounds for a civil action with exemplary damages Additionally, national security agencies' primary role should be the strengthening of cyber-security: reporting and patching defects in common OSes and applications, improving cryptographic standards, etc. Cory On 05/03/14 03:16, Udhay Shankar N wrote: Via Dave Farber's IP list. Ignoring many of the talking points in the rant below, the claim I am most interested in is The internet is a utility, just like water and electricity. I am really interested in the thoughts of silklisters on this, especially folks like Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash, who work in the policy area; Cory Doctorow, who ceaselessly educates anyone who will listen on these issues; and divers others. Udhay -- Forwarded message -- From: *Dewayne Hendricks* dewa...@warpspeed.com Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The internet is fucked To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net dewayne-...@warpspeed.com [Note: This item comes from friend Tim Pozar. DLH] From: Tim Pozar po...@lns.com Subject: The internet is fucked Date: March 4, 2014 at 8:13:00 PST To: Dewayne Hendricks dewa...@warpspeed.com POLICY LAW The internet is fucked By Nilay Patel Feb 25 2014 http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked Here's a simple truth: the internet has radically changed the world. Over the course of the past 20 years, the idea of networking all the world's computers has gone from a research science pipe dream to a necessary condition of economic and social development, from government and university labs to kitchen tables and city streets. We are all travelers now, desperate souls searching for a signal to connect us all. It is awesome. And we're fucking everything up. Massive companies like ATT and Comcast have spent the first two months of 2014 boldly announcing plans to close and control the internet through additional fees, pay-to-play schemes, and sheer brutal size -- all while the legal rules designed to protect against these kinds of abuses were struck down in court for basically making too much sense. Broadband providers represent a threat to internet openness, concluded Judge David Tatel in Verizon's case against the FCC's Open Internet order, adding that the FCC had provided ample evidence of internet companies abusing their market power and had made a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made. Verizon argued strenuously, but had offered the court no persuasive reason to question that judgement. Then Tatel cut the FCC off at the knees for making a rather half-hearted argument in support of its authority to properly police these threats and vacated the rules protecting the open internet, surprising observers on both sides of the industry and sending new FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler into a tailspin of empty promises seemingly designed to disappoint everyone. I expected the anti-blocking rule to be upheld, National Cable and Telecommunications Association president and CEO Michael Powell told me after the ruling was issued. Powell was chairman of the FCC under George W. Bush; he issued the first no-blocking rules. Judge Tatel basically said the Commission didn't argue it properly. In the meantime, the companies that control the internet have continued down a dark path, free of any oversight or meaningful competition to check their behavior. In January, ATT announced a new sponsored data plan that would dramatically alter the fierce one-click-away competition that's thus far characterized the internet. Earlier this month, Comcast announced plans to merge with Time Warner Cable, creating an internet service behemoth that will serve 40 percent of Americans in 19 of the 20 biggest markets with virtually no rivals. And after months of declining Netflix performance on Comcast's network, the two companies announced a new paid peering arrangement on Sunday, which will see Netflix pay Comcast for better access to its customers, a capitulation Netflix has been trying to avoid for years. Paid peering arrangements are common among the network companies that connect the backbones of the internet, but consumer companies like Netflix have traditionally remained out
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
Issues with reporting bugs is something that is a kind of side effect of the DMCA - but the vuln report community has already split into trusted / vetted groups where a lot more takes place than in public groups like full disclosure. For that part I have no dispute with you at all. Neither do I disagree with 'rule of law'. The network neutrality debate is one that has been vitiated with more ideology than anything else, a penchant for regulating - one that makes absolutely no distinction (among its leading commenters, as I have seen before) about filtering for legitimate security (spam and malware) versus discrimination based on content. And its leading proponents see no problem with calling paid peering - which IS content neutral, and which is based on traffic ratios rather than content - extortion. There are legitimate policy arguments to be made on that side of things. A penchant for actual public policy rather than playing politics might help them make their case a lot better. --srs (iPad) On 05-Mar-2014, at 11:49, Cory Doctorow docto...@craphound.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I pretty much totally agree. The triumverate of Internet rules we need are: * Net Neutrality (either by forcing line-sharing like in the UK, or through direct regulation of carriers on the basis that they receive a massive public subsidy in the form of rights-of-way) * Vuln neutrality: an end to rules like the DMCA (and its global cousins) that prohibit reporting bugs * Rule of law: an end to censorship without court orders (DMCA takedown notices) and without penalty for abuse. Filing a bad-faith takedown should be criminally punishable as perjury, should be grounds for dismissal from the bar (if applicable), and should also be grounds for a civil action with exemplary damages Additionally, national security agencies' primary role should be the strengthening of cyber-security: reporting and patching defects in common OSes and applications, improving cryptographic standards, etc. Cory On 05/03/14 03:16, Udhay Shankar N wrote: Via Dave Farber's IP list. Ignoring many of the talking points in the rant below, the claim I am most interested in is The internet is a utility, just like water and electricity. I am really interested in the thoughts of silklisters on this, especially folks like Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash, who work in the policy area; Cory Doctorow, who ceaselessly educates anyone who will listen on these issues; and divers others. Udhay -- Forwarded message -- From: *Dewayne Hendricks* dewa...@warpspeed.com Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The internet is fucked To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net dewayne-...@warpspeed.com [Note: This item comes from friend Tim Pozar. DLH] From: Tim Pozar po...@lns.com Subject: The internet is fucked Date: March 4, 2014 at 8:13:00 PST To: Dewayne Hendricks dewa...@warpspeed.com POLICY LAW The internet is fucked By Nilay Patel Feb 25 2014 http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked Here's a simple truth: the internet has radically changed the world. Over the course of the past 20 years, the idea of networking all the world's computers has gone from a research science pipe dream to a necessary condition of economic and social development, from government and university labs to kitchen tables and city streets. We are all travelers now, desperate souls searching for a signal to connect us all. It is awesome. And we're fucking everything up. Massive companies like ATT and Comcast have spent the first two months of 2014 boldly announcing plans to close and control the internet through additional fees, pay-to-play schemes, and sheer brutal size -- all while the legal rules designed to protect against these kinds of abuses were struck down in court for basically making too much sense. Broadband providers represent a threat to internet openness, concluded Judge David Tatel in Verizon's case against the FCC's Open Internet order, adding that the FCC had provided ample evidence of internet companies abusing their market power and had made a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made. Verizon argued strenuously, but had offered the court no persuasive reason to question that judgement. Then Tatel cut the FCC off at the knees for making a rather half-hearted argument in support of its authority to properly police these threats and vacated the rules protecting the open internet, surprising observers on both sides of the industry and sending new FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler into a tailspin of empty promises seemingly designed to disappoint everyone. I expected the anti-blocking rule to be upheld, National Cable and Telecommunications Association president and CEO Michael Powell told me after the ruling was issued. Powell was chairman of the FCC under
