NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information

 

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

[mostly responding to the moderator, but making a claim in last para].

{I explicitly didn't get into the spectrum/airwaves issues :P }

I think we have choices, and each has implications. I am not a fan of allocating spectrum to be used *only* for certain applications using certain technologies (e.g., GSM over 850 MHz for voice/data). But the other extreme would be where some new uses have disproportionate value. E.g., SPRINT (which came from something like Southern Pacific Railroad Information NeTwork) used its railroad lines and Rights of Way to have a telecom branch/company. But what happens when someone leases public land for a specific use, and then, say, finds oil underground? Most often, we restrict underground mineral rights for such uses. In Pennsylvania, I don't own the rights to any coal under my own house.

When someone gets rights to use certain spectrum (note, I didn't say "own"), I mostly fall in the camp of letting them do with it as they wish. They can choose which services to run, e.g., a voice service. A data service. Both. A TV service, etc. BUT, for each of those, there are norms if not rules they should follow, such as non-censorship. NN? I think similar things apply to any service provider.

Rahul

************************************************************************
Rahul Tongia, Ph.D.
Senior Systems Scientist

Program in Computation, Organizations, and Society (COS)
School of Computer Science (ISR) /
Dept. of Engineering & Public Policy

Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
tel: 412-268-5619
fax: 412-268-2338
email: tongia@cmu.edu
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rtongia



Rahul Tongia wrote: 
Not to extend this thread, BUT...

One distinction appears to be public vs. private. [at the extreme, federal govt. vs. commercial ISP, though in many countries the ISP is the national carrier].

Every time a (major) ISP says "These are my pipes" I remember a few points:

1) A lot of connectivity options, including greenfield options like fiber overlays, involve the public through rights-of-way and other issues
2) For the majority of connections, i.e., cable and DSL, much of their infrastructure (esp. copper) was paid for through regulated means. I paid for the copper through my voice calls and my late night TV. Now, these companies are harnessing this to extend functionality (which inherently is a good thing, rather than re-building). The Q becomes to what extent to we would want to or need to attempt things like "structural separation" or "affiliate transactions."

Rahul

   [ Hmmm.  This same reasoning would seem to apply to wireless
     Internet network operators using public airwaves in the
     furtherance of their businesses as well.  Is it appropriate
     that such operators may be permitted to use this very limited
     public resource for commercial purposes -- including sale of
     associated services to the public -- without significant
     regulatory oversight to ensure that their use is in keeping
     with the public interest?

                -- Lauren Weinstein
                   NNSquad Moderator ]



************************************************************************
Rahul Tongia, Ph.D.
Senior Systems Scientist

Program in Computation, Organizations, and Society (COS)
School of Computer Science (ISR) /
Dept. of Engineering & Public Policy

Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
tel: 412-268-5619
fax: 412-268-2338
email: tongia@cmu.edu
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rtongia



Kelly Setzer wrote:
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