NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Do the Happy Dance people... strike 3 and you're out
Sorry, but I can't help but get frustrated as we continue to talk about
layers of things which make no sense if we shine light on them - 250GB is an
arbitrary rule promulgated by a company that controls our basic right to
communicate.
First they go after the P2P traffic because they think they can all those
who communicate using peer protocols by calling them pirates.
Second they threaten to punish "heavy" users by limiting their rate over a
long time base without explaining or defining what they are doing.
Third they come up with a fanciful and arbitrary measure calling 250GB/month
too much without even any hint as to why that helps and showing no sense of
timescale as the Internet capacity grows. They tell me I can't communicate
with my neighbor because I may consume too much of something. And there is
no appeal or negotiation or pricing for this policy. They again think like
Excite@home they can call the best customers abusers even if they are doing
backup or have medical monitoring or whatever.
What is this Internet we're consuming and how does limiting monthly usage
relate to congestion? Especially if that use is purely local such as between
me and MIT given that there is local peering? Will Comcast agree to track
Moore's law?
What does it cost Comcast if I exchange 250GB with my neighbor and who gave
them the right to tell me I can't. Is Comcast immune from the first
amendment?
And I don't want nonsense about T1 pricing -- the prices are all arbitrary
and based on what they can get away with. There is no real marketplace to
compete.
[ The 1st Amendment is generally understood only to apply to
governmental restrictions, not ones taken by non-governmental
entities.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Bennett
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 17:19
To: Robb Topolski
Cc: Brett Glass; nnsquad; Lauren Weinstein
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Do the Happy Dance people...
The fact remains that "unlimited" in the context of Internet access has
generally been understood to mean simply that there are no
connection-time charges. At one time, people accessed their ISPs over
dial-up connections, which were typically charged on connection time.
AT&T phased out connection-time charges when they realized that such
charges added to resource congestion. as they encouraged people to
disconnect during non-peak periods.
DSL and cable have been free of connection-time charges because they're
"always on" services. But it's misleading to say that there haven't
always been other limits on these services: go read any TOS for any DSL
or Cable Internet service from anyone at any time: you can't run
servers, you can't consume excessive resources. you can't spam, etc,
etc, etc.
This is reality: residential broadband is inexpensive relative to
business broadband because it's a shared service with no guaranteed CIR.
That means the service is over-sold by design. Go price non-oversold
services, and you'll find your best deal is $400/mo for 1.5 Mb/s
symmetrical T1. Compare that to $60/mo for 16/2 Mb/s from Comcast.
What's the magic? Low duty cycle sharing. And it's a good thing, because
it allows millions of people to get fast service for low prices.
A mailing list that's supposed to be about holding ISPs feet to the fire
shouldn't engage in willful ignorance.
RB
[ This is becoming positively Kafkaesque. Brett claims that
"unlimited" simply meant "not limiting the sort of content that
you send or receive." Richard says it meant "no metered
connection time charges" -- though such charges have largely
been little seen for years. Spinning like the twister that
took Dorothy to Oz.
It's absolutely clear that the generally understood meaning of
"unlimited" in the context of residential broadband service -- and
earlier promotional statements by both cable and DSL providers made
this utterly obvious -- was that you could send or receive as much
data as you wished for your monthly fee. Yes, there are often
arbitrary server restrictions (but the presence of servers does not
necessarily translate into high traffic volumes), and rules against
"interfering with other customers" and such.
But these attempts to retroactively redefine what was clearly
understood by the public as the meaning of "unlimited" in this
context are straight from fantasyland.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
- - -
Robb Topolski wrote:
> For everyone's information, I have *never* visited an FCC Commissioner
> and have I *never* visited or appeared before a legislator. I was a
> panelist at the April 17th FCC Stanford hearing (as was Brett), and I
> was there on my own dime (as was Brett). I was not under contract
> with FP/PK (or either) at that time, nor was such an arrangement under
> consideration.
>
> Subsequent to the hearings, FP/PK are now my clients. I am their
> consultant. That does kinda associate us together, but I generally
> don't speak for them. My particular convictions are my own and they
> are well aware that it may not mesh with theirs and that I will still
> express them. As their consultant, they sometimes commission me to
> contribute something on their behalf -- and I do, and I clearly
> disclose that I'm doing so on their behalf. Even then, I have not and
> would not say anything that I didn't actually support as my first,
> best judgment, position, or opinion.
>
> Brett feels safe to say anything he wants to say, and I have to
> respond to avoid it being understood as truth. This situation is
> unacceptable.
>
> Robb Topolski
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net
> <mailto:brett@lariat.net>> wrote:
>
> Robb Topolski is a lobbyist by any definition. "Free" Press has
> trotted him out to appear before, and visit, the FCC Commissioners
> and legislators to favor stifling regulation of Internet providers.
> Very SPECIFIC regulations and legislation.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robb Topolski (robb@funchords.com <mailto:robb@funchords.com>)
> Hillsboro, Oregon USA
> http://www.funchords.com/