Seems on-topic, even though policy related.
Seems on-topic, even though policy related.
Between that and the ACTA foolishness .. seems to be a good time to get
into the VPN business.
/rant
Michael Holstein
Cleveland State University
It seems to me that "Net Neutrality" has been conflagrated into meaning
both of two separate things:
(a) congestion management
(b) restricting access to certain websites etc., such that an SP
creates a Walled Garden, that either the customer or the content
provider is expected to pay to or to provide access too.
I'm not against (a), because fundamental assumptions of the
Internet/TCP were short and brusty traffic, which implies end-nodes
sharing network resources, and only dominating them for relatively short
periods. P2P destroys (and yes, that is intentionally a strong word)
that assumption.
OTOH, (b) is something I completely object to. ISPs are a conduit, not
a controller of content.
So, there's the problem. According to the above, I'm both for, and
against, Network Neutrality.
One thing which would significantly help this argument for or against
Network Neutrality is defining exactly what it is.
Regards,
Mark.
<snip>
So, there's the problem. According to the above, I'm both for, and
against, Network Neutrality.One thing which would significantly help this argument for or against
Network Neutrality is defining exactly what it is.
ISOC has gone a step further and stopped using the term "network
neutrality" in general. This is due in large part to the problem you
described quite well here - the term is loaded with emotion and
largely undefined. They are now using the phrase "Open
Internetworking" to describe their stance on the issue.
For what it's worth, here is a good document recently published which
defines that stance:
http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/usercentricity/20100222-Inter-Networking.pdf
~Chris
<disclaimer>I am the founding chair of the Colorado Chapter of the
Internet Society - CO ISOC</disclaimer>
How very sensible of ISOC.
In Europe you rarely encounter courts circumscribing regulatory power.
And it is well known that the District Court is dominated by anti-regulatory judges.
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
People are defending the FCC?
The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband, not "Information Service" and thus came under the purview of
the FBI and CALEA - directly contravening the language and intent of the CALEA act?
Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is just your enemy.
Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications
joe@via.net
650-207-0372 cell
650-213-1302 office
650-969-2124 fax
The FCC has a definition of sorts, in terms of its six principles. Page three of http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2009/db1022/DOC-294152A1.pdf gives you those.
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
People are defending the FCC?
The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband, not "Information Service" and thus came under the purview of
the FBI and CALEA - directly contravening the language and intent of the CALEA act?
Very specifically NOT the same FCC. The FCC may retain the name, but the management, political bent, philosophies, and attitude are very different from the one that made that ruling.
That said, it is entirely possible this FCC would make the same ruling. Doesn't change what I said above.
Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is just your enemy.
Sometimes. And sometimes he is neither, so it might be advantageous to work with him on the occasional project where your interest and his correlate well.
I believe you are doing a disservice to the FCC by making these inflammatory statements. There are plenty of GOOD people at the FCC, I'm guessing you may not have spent much time talking to them. (I met with the FCC about CALEA due to concerns about there being no mature 10G intercept platforms. There are vendors that are shipping devices that are not CALEA compliant, but may be compliant under other lawful intercept methods/statutes).
You have to understand that there are political appointees (that must be confirmed) and the regular staffers that operate in this space. The federal register and comment process is abundant, allowing people to file comments on nearly anything the government is discussing.
If you've not engaged in getting the daily notices from the Federal Register, and did not file form 445, you may want to take a look at it. Phone the FCC. Phone the DoJ and ask for the "CALEA Implementation Unit", the folks there are behind the http://askcalea.net website.
As with many things, there is a lot of (mis-)information out there.
(Gotta run kids are bleeding!).
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
People are defending the FCC?
After looking at who they elect, why does that surprise?
The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband, not "Information Service" and thus came under the purview of
the FBI and CALEA - directly contravening the language and intent of the CALEA act?Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is just your enemy.
The calculus is really simpler.
Somebody famous should have said (or maybe Ronald Reagan _did_ say:
"Government is not the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem."
What are the net emigration rates by country?
What are the net "medical tourism" rates by country?
What are the net disaster charity rates by country?
Larry Sheldon wrote:
Got it. It is OK to make accusations, but not OK to challenge them.
My apologies.
Yawn.
And here I thought I was defending them for being different & better than the last group.
The point is, joe asked about the FCC that made a ruling. The staffers who work hard (and deserve lots of credit for working hard) do not make those rulings. The political appointees and their handlers in the administration make those rulings. Those appointees are very different than the last group. And I think this is a very good thing.
For instance, could you in your wildest dreams have imagined the last group sending their top people to NANOG, and those people standing around asking people to talk to them? That was AWESOME, and very different than the "last FCC".
And I don't think there is anything wrong with thinking of it that way.