[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)

["Dan Doyle" <dan.c.doyle@gmail.com>]

It seems to me that the term to forbid P2P and servers is an ISP
problem, not a consumer problem. So, ISPs have created a term in a
customer's contract that you cannot enforce without violating an
individuals privacy. That is not my problem and because I may agree to
not use P2P or bring up a sever on the network does not logically
infer your right to inspect my packets without explicitly asking for
the right to inspect too. It is possible that the term is more wind
than substance. It is not your job to enforce honesty - it seems to me
that is a matter for a court decide.

Dan

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>