NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)
The following is my personal opinion, not a statement on behalf of NNSquad. At the risk of sounding a bit like Bob Frankston, I don't accept the premise that ISPs have any intrinsic right to monitor my applications and micromanage my use of the Internet, beyond flow control as necessary to keep their networks healthy. Even the fact that a user is choosing to run application A or application B can be viewed as an element of content that should be none of the ISPs' business. Even if users choose to run 24/7 VPNs, with all applications layered within those encrypted channels, ISPs' main concerns should be that those subscribers' bandwidth usage stays within their contractual limits and that their overall throughput is managed to the extent necessary to avoid unfair impacts on other subscribers or the network itself. This implies that any subscriber should be able to run servers if they wish. If a subscriber were determined to be engaging in illegal activities or actions that were disrupting other users (e.g. spam), they would be subject to appropriate actions, of course, but it's inappropriate to treat subscribers as if they were untrustworthy crooks on an a priori basis. "Disrupting other users" by this definition doesn't include the simple running of protocols that make heavy use of subscribed circuits. If ISPs have a problem with user throughput, they should be able to throttle the speed (not block!) as necessary. But such throttling rules should be spelled out clearly, so that when a person pays for a circuit of a specific advertised "up to this speed," they have some clue as to what they're actually paying for. This all doesn't address the problem of how to avoid ISPs managing bandwidth in ways that favor their own entertainment and related delivery systems over outside services, but that's another story. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator - - - > At 10:48 PM 2/28/2008, Lauren Weinstein wrote: > > > >Brett Glass says: "Sixth, there should be no obfuscation of P2P." > > > >Bzzzz! Sorry, no can do, at least if we're talking about some sort > >of enforced ban. I'm personally not a user of P2P currently, but I > >reserve the right to encrypt any or all of my Internet traffic for > >security and privacy purposes as I see fit, and most security > >consultants worth their salt recommend encrypting as much as > >possible, given the nature of the Internet today. > > Encrypt the content if you will, but if you try to obfuscate the > fact that you are DOING P2P, in violation of a contract you made > with your ISP, you are being dishonest. And if you announce from > the start your intent to be dishonest, then there can never be > a truce, much less a mutually beneficial agreement. And you will > be exactly the kind of customer whom we will be glad to send > packing. We like doing business honestly, with honest people. > > --Brett Glass >