[ NNSquad ] Re: Civil Rights Groups Wants P2P Throttling to Preserve Rights (or something like that)

[Kelly Setzer <setzer@liquidchicken.org>]

Vint Cerf wrote:
> these people don't seem to recognize that the interference of the 
> broadband providers is an abridgment of their ability to speak. 
> amazing. welcome to 1984, you have entered a time warp. Maybe this is 
> the Bizarro planet.
I thought the bogeyman in 1984 was the government?  If one has a choice 
between having an ISP interfere with their communications and having the 
federal government interfere with their communications, it seems 
imminently preferable to choose ISP interference.  There might be 
another ISP to get your service from, but there is only one Federal 
Government.  Considering our government's recent regulatory history with 
communications and digital media, I'm surprised anyone would be rushing 
to our government (or any government) for relief.

I happen to strongly disagree with the views of Brett Glass regarding 
his network management practices.  However, if I was his customer, I 
would be able to cancel my service.  If I disagree with federal 
regulations, I can't cancel those.  The coalition mentioned below may be 
using tortured logic, but it at least deserves more than an illiterate 
dismissal.  How about a more thoughtful critique, Mr. Cerf?

Kelly


  [ Well, my initial attempt to close this thread appears to have
    failed.  Let's go a couple more rounds and then, as
    Bullwinkle would say, "This time for sure!"

           -- Lauren Weinstein
              NNSquad Moderator ]

    

> On Mar 3, 2008, at 8:54 AM, Edge, Ronald D wrote:
>
> > It is sort of hard to know where to begin when confronted with 
> > ignorance like this:
> >
> > "The U.S. Federal Communications Commission should allow broadband 
> > providers to manage their networks and slow "bandwidth hogs," despite 
> > concerns that such practices arbitrarily target some customers, said 
> > a coalition of seven civil rights groups."
> >
> > "Net neutrality rules for broadband providers would protect bandwidth 
> > hogs at the expense of other customers and civic organizations, said 
> > the coalition, which includes the National Black Chamber of Commerce, 
> > Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association, League of 
> > Rural Voters and National Council of Women's Organizations."
> >
> > "The coalition filed comments with the FCC Thursday in the agency's 
> > inquiry into Comcast's slowing of some P-to-P (peer-to-peer) traffic. 
> > "Regulations prohibiting network management risk undermining free 
> > speech on the Internet by allowing P2P traffic to overwhelm the 
> > network and prevent non-P2P traffic from reaching its destination," 
> > the coalition said in its filing. "The effective prioritization of 
> > P2P traffic would represent an altogether new type of 'back of the 
> > bus' second-class status for our speech on broadband networks -- and 
> > ought to be resoundingly rejected." "
> >
> > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/022908-civil-rights-groups-fcc-should.html?code=nldailynewsam125479 
> >
> >
> > Apparently I woke up in everything is opposite land this morning, at 
> > least that is how I read their 'thinking', and I use the term loosely.
> >
> > Ron.
> >
> > Ronald D. Edge
> > Director of Information Systems
> > Indiana University Intercollegiate Athletics
> > edge@indiana.edu (812)855-9010 http://iuhoosiers.com
> >
> > The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing.
> > If you can fake that, you've got it made.
> > --Groucho Marx