Ahhh....they feel they shouldn't sensor, and there I was thinking that
was Google's task in life. Very generous and what a great idea for new
laws that firmly put the blame on anyone but Google.
Also:
US Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts
Democrat and ranking member of the House
Telecommunications Subcommittee, hinted that the
Federal Communications Commission might interfere in
the matter. ''Obviously, I hope the parties will reach
a timely commercial arrangement to resolve this
dispute," said Markey, ''but the FCC must be prepared
to take steps to assure continuity of service to
consumers in the event that the parties fail to reach
an agreement."
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/10/07/dispute_threatens_to_snarl_internet/?page=2
Google Goes to Washington
One of the issues Google will tackle has become news
this week: Level 3 and Cogent Communications are
involved in a spat that has made Web sites on each
network inaccessible or very slow to users on the
opposite network. Google said the government has a
responsibility to monitor the Internet so events
like
this do not occur.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Google_Goes_to_Washington/1128691070
...and how does that affect Google caching? 
Google Goes to Washington
One of the issues Google will tackle has become news
this week: Level 3 and Cogent Communications are
involved in a spat that has made Web sites on each
network inaccessible or very slow to users on the
opposite network. Google said the government has a
responsibility to monitor the Internet so events like
this do not occur.http://www.betanews.com/article/Google_Goes_to_Washington/1128691070
Google also has a responsibility not to bite the hand that feeds it - the
laise faire, unregulated Internet.
Shame on them. Google is not suffering at all from this.
Even those IXs with MPLA policy have to rely on law and courts for
enforcement -- that is, those with guns.In the United States, as in most countries, there is an
explicit separation of the courts from the enforcement
of laws. For instance, in the United States, the Executive
Branch is in charge of the guys with guns, while the Judicial
branch only deals with making decisions about the application
of the laws created by the Legislative branch. The laws
are executed and enforced by the Executive branch, hence
the name.
Not exactly. I'll speak only of the US Federal structure, since
the states each have somewhat different ways in which they manage
their own collections of guys with guns.
At the federal level in the US, the executive branch has
(theoretically) limited charge over the guys with
guns which can (theoretically easily) be overridden by the
legislative branch. Additionally, the Judicial branch has a
whole collection of guys with guns under their own direction
(we call them "Marshalls"). In terms of getting a guy
with a gun to assist you in resolving a civil dispute
(aka enforcing a contract), the process is thus:
1. Demand offending party comply with contract
in writing (send appropriate demand letters, etc.)
2. Ask appropriate court for relief. (file suit)
3. Serve notice to offending party (process service)
4. Prosecute your case in court (the trial)
5. If court finds in your favor, receive judgment.
6. Provide certified copy of judgment to appropriate
enforcement agency (the guys with guns), if any.
7. Enforcement agency takes appropriate action based
on court order.
This is a bit of an oversimplification, but, in Civil
cases, I think it shows that the judicial branch has
a slightly broader scope than you implied.
Regulations also do not imply the involvement of governments.
It is possible for industries to self-regulate such as the
ARIN policies which are a product of the ARIN membership,
i.e. companies who use IP addresses in their networks.
Mostly true. However, ARIN policies are a product of both
the ARIN membership and the IP using community at large.
It is an important and good thing that the policy process is
not limited to ARIN members.
If the press would truly understand this event then they would
be reporting this as a *MAJOR* flaw in the business model of
the largest ISPs. The absence of regulation in Internet peering
allows this type of situation to come about. It is my opinion
that the network and the Internet business would both be stronger
if there was some regulation of peering and IP/MPLS network
interconnection.
If I had faith in any of the regulatory organizations that are likely
to attempt to do this having half a clue about what they were attempting
to regulate, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, given
experience to date with any of the agencies I think are likely to
attempt this, I suspect your cure would likely turn out worse than
the current disease. Now, if 3 or 4 more large ISPs were to start
approaching things the way this is going, things might get bad
enough to change my mind.
A couple of good things can come out of this "open peering" model.
One is that disclosure of the technical details, including packet
drop, buffer consumption, and bandwidth, would lead to more reliable
interconnects and the ability to provide quality of service SLAs
across provider networks. The other possible benefit is to develop
more sophisticated interconnect variants such as MPLS VPN interconnects
and CDN or multicast interconnects.
Sure, but, the likelihood of any of the large ISPs agreeing to such a
model is very close to zero, and, none of the potentially competent
regulators you describe stand a chance of meaningful regulation without
the participation of the large ISPs. Don't get me started on the mess
that occurs when laws "Incorporate by reference" the policies of an
outside regulatory agency in order to give that agency the power
to regulate. Generally, this does not turn out well. (Look at
the mess that is the fire code/NFPA interconnect in many jurisdictions
within the US). It is my considered opinion that any text which
shall have the force of law MUST meet the following criteria:
+ Text must be available in the public domain without
charge (nominal printing costs excepted where
applicable).
+ Text shall not be copyrighted except to the public
domain.
+ Text, in its entirety shall have been reviewed and
approved by an appropriate legislative body and
any changes should require review and approval by
said legislative body.
Owen
Will the same regulations Google wants, also provide better oversight into
how Google operates? When Google unilaterally removes or changes the
rankings of its search results, I assume a government regulatory agency
will be able to issue orders and control how Google operates its
bottleneck search infrastructure to provide fair, neutral and transparent,
in the government agency's opinion, of google's operations?
That wasn't my reason for citing it. Neither Google *nor* intermediaries
should be responsible for illegal content -- to them, it's just bits moving.
The only responsibility that *either* one should bear is the ability to
provide an audit trail to the real culprit, no more.
Correct. Holding a dial-up ISP responsible for content on one of it's
customer's machines (or perhaps even a warez server on the other side of
the globe?) is complete nonsense. Having them provide forensic info is
another (more sensible) matter.
Go to Google. Enter "googlebombing". Follow the first link. Read what
happened on June 2, 2005.
Evaluate the chances of the government enforcing *actual* "fair, neutral, and
transparent" operations.
Reading some of this is rather disturbing, like if we
live in some kind of control freak society, where
every
comment is we are trying to control terrorism so we
must eliminate everyones right of expression and
distort every means of communication including the
internet.
I disagree that companies should be harmed because of
elements within a given state of these United States
should have any power to regulate what any corporation
like google does or does not do, just because they
lack any talent to compete at all and I support now
more than ever this effort...
Google lobbies Congress for a 'free' internet
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2143440/google-beefs-lobbying-efforts
-Henry
> Regulations also do not imply the involvement of governments.
> It is possible for industries to self-regulate such as the
> ARIN policies which are a product of the ARIN membership,
> i.e. companies who use IP addresses in their networks.
>
Mostly true. However, ARIN policies are a product of both
the ARIN membership and the IP using community at large.
It is an important and good thing that the policy process is
not limited to ARIN members.
I suppose the corollary to this in the world of network
peering is that it will be a good thing for end-users to
have some say in the peering agreements which are causing
some of them grief at present. Wise self-regulation of Internet
peering would find a way to incorporate the views of users
who, in the end, pay everyone's bills.
If I had faith in any of the regulatory organizations that are likely
to attempt to do this having half a clue about what they were attempting
to regulate, I might be inclined to agree with you.
Self-regulation is still possible. Network operators meet regularly
in a number of venues such as MAAWG Messaging AntiAbuse Workking
Group http://www.maawg.org and our own beloved NANOG. It only takes
a bit of willpower and elbow grease to start up an industry association
with the aims of monitoring, regulating, improving and reporting on
Internet operator interconnects.
Sure, but, the likelihood of any of the large ISPs agreeing to such a
model is very close to zero,
That's where people like the politicians, and the FCC come in.
When the end-users want to see change, they bother the politicians
and FCC who in turn threaten to impose regulation. The wisest
network operators see the writing on the wall and organize self
regulation as a preemptive strike.
Look at how commodities exchanges and stock exchanges publish the
detailed prices of transactions. Most people have this idea that
price data is "sensitive" and that one does not disclose the
prices negotiated in contracts. But at the same time, the exchanges
are an accepted part of the business world.
Today we live in a world where peering agreements are "sensitive"
and both parties are bound by NDAs. The result is that a lot of
garbage is hidden from public view and this garbage does have
negative impacts on the end users who rely on the Internet as
a mission critical component of their business plan. Get rid of
the secrecy and you will also get rid of the garbage.
--Michael Dillon