NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose
> From: Brett Glass [mailto:brett@lariat.net] > This sounds like the beginning of a definition, but it's far > too vague. Customers don't want to know every detail of how > the Internet works, so every "behavior not specifically > requested" is not undesirable. Put simply, I want and expect Internet access with as few exceptions as possible. If my ISP does something unusual, such as blocking a specific outbound port, placing a cap on usage, or prioritizes or degrades or blocks a particular protocol, then those facts need to be published. I am interested in the technical details. For example, ISPs might want to publish exceptions like Microsoft describes their security updates. The security update is first described in very general terms, with a link to an additional page with technical details. Whatever an ISP does, its actions should be neutral to the expected operation of the reset of the Internet. In other words, Comcast's degredation of P2P shouldn't be sending spurious and forged RSTs outside of its own network. The internet has a history of taking care of matters without involving much government interference. If there is a law, all I want it to do is to make the ISPs behave within the established or customary methods consistent with the Internet community. If they want to do something new and different, they need to publish their proposal for study and adoption. I like the language in the 2005 FCC Policy Statement at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf (url). Let's do this. As a ham radio operator, the FCC has a long history of respecting the customary use of our medium, and even respects, upholds and enforces the decisions of non-government bodies that have taken on the task of carefully studying and coordinating how it is to be used. Let's encourage the FCC to treat the Internet in the same way. Just like any other network that connects to the Internet, Comcast should behave as a good Internet citizen, or it should be treated as rouge. If it doesn't stop, then its peers and customers should escalate their objections in public forums, by erecting routing or blocking defences to the rouge's objectionable behavior, and -- if necessary -- taking legal enforcement action available within the proper jurisdiction of the rouge (if available) and/or disconnecting the rouge from the Internet. These escalating objections are very effective in shaping public opinion about a brand. Brand image is very valuable. VeriSign, for example, relies on trust on its brand. It lost a lot of trust in 2003 when it starting redirection of misspelled DNS lookups to marketing pages (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_Finder for a history). I think we all can agree that the value of its deteriorated during this time.