[ale] OT: Craig Newmark of Craig's List on Net Neutrality

[Jim Popovitch]

David A. De Graaf wrote:
  > To me, the 'net neutrality' issue is brilliantly clear.  The Telcos are
> common carriers.  They sell bandwidth, nothing more.  They have a right
> to charge more for more bandwidth.
 >
 > They have NO right to control or restrict content or connectivity
 > of data transmitted over the channel.
 >

The telcos (and every other ISP) also *own* that bandwidth and have a 
responsibility to the greater community of users to monitor, police, and 
act on data that crosses their network as it is blatantly obvious that 
end-users and network peers don't.

If all Atlantans decided to use GoogleEarth at the same time and sap 
available bandwidth from me, I am going to expect Comcast to increase 
the capabilities of their network.  Who should pay for that network 
upgrade? Me?  OK, so Comcast should pay something to upgrade their 
network, but should they do it every time the next-big thing comes 
around?  Comcast isn't in the business of predicting the network needs 
20 years from now, what do you think they will need for per-household 
bandwith in 5, 10, 15, and 20 years?  See, it ain't easy.

> The telcos cannot be trusted.
> Do you remember (as I do) when your friendly telco said it was illegal
> to connect a second telephone to their line?
> Do you remember when they declared it illegal to use a modem on their
> line?

Yes.  Look into their reasonings for those actions (google for Ringer 
Equivalency Number) .  The telco (their was only one in those days) 
actions were tied to call quality (QoS was an unknown term in those 
days) for existing users.  They were concerned (as all historical 
documents have shown) for the affect of 100M+ customers plugging in a 
second phone/device on a network of twisted-pair powered from banks of 
DC batteries in each CO.  Heck, even GA Power cares if you and all your 
neighbors decide to connect an industrial size welder to your home 
hookups.  In fact, I'd bet your service would drop, and they would still 
charge you for the massive amount of power you used. ;-)

> How does using a modem on a phone line differ from accessing, say,
> googleearth over an internet channel?

Modems were speed capped.... by the entity that you propose (below) to 
do the regulation of the telcos.  Ironic, isn't it?

> At this time, Verizon blocks standard transmission of email.
> What's next?

Ports 53, 161, 162, 113, perhaps also ident if they don't already.  A 
lot of ISPs block ICMP at some point.  This is very common network 
operation practice.  You want a 100% clear pipe.... pay for it.  Don't 
expect a free & fat pipe for < $50/month... something like that is too 
easily abused.

> When will they decide I shouldn't download Linux dvd.iso's, or not use
> my VOIP telephone, or not connect another office LAN via an encrypted
> secure protocol?

paranoia, although I can see them throttling ftp, p2p, etc.  It only 
makes sense.  If you read the fine print of your contact with your ISP, 
you don't have a guarantee to anything. ;-)

> As much as I hate government interference, the telcos, et al, NEED to
> be regulated to protect us from their avarice (and idiocy).

History shows that regulation costs money and is rarely affective.  The 
most effective avenue is customer (un)satisfaction.  What did tobacco 
legislation/regulation get you.... what did it cost you?  How about 
nuclear regulation, like that high power bill and smoggy air you have? 
What about all those coal mine accidents... just why is that coal being 
mined?  etc. etc.  Want regulation? Be careful what you wish for.

> The Rise of the Stupid Network was originally written during a single
> long weekend in May 1997 by David S. Isenberg while he was an employee
> of AT&T Labs Research. It was officially released onto the Internet by
> AT&T in June 1997.  It can (still) be found at
>     http://www.isen.com/stupid.html
> 
> This article brilliantly defines the real innovation of the internet
> design - a network that is devoid of internal control and which puts
> total control at the periphery, allowing unconstrained innovation
> by the users.  Only because all control rests with the users, have
> we seen usage evolve that was never dreamt of at the outset - file
> sharing and bittorrent, VOIP and asterisk, online banking, etc...
> This fundamental element - the absence of control within the network -
> is at risk today due to a power grab by the telcos.

I haven't read David's piece, but I can tell you that in a world that 
can't agree if it's OK to mention "God" in public, it would surely seem 
impossible to see a network as you imply that David writes about. 
Yesteryear perhaps, but not today, nor tomorrow.  Heck, all of us on ALE 
can't agree on how port 25 should be handled, does anyone think the 
world of users can?

-Jim P.