NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] [IP] Re: "Entry level pricing" as social policy v2
----- Forwarded message from Joshua Tinnin <krinklyfig@gmail.com> ----- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 20:13:51 -0600 From: Joshua Tinnin <krinklyfig@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [IP] Re: "Entry level pricing" as social policy v2 To: bob2-39@bobf.frankston.com Cc: dave@farber.net, lauren@vortex.com, declan@well.com > Sure the consumer ToS might say you can’t share it among – among whom? How > do they define the boundaries other than by intrusive social policy? Ultimately they > can’t enforce these policies. I disagree. Currently, in most places, sharing your connection in violation of the TOS could be considered theft of services. There's nothing stopping that person from going to another ISP, but the ISP can indeed enforce policies through the old fashioned method of cutting off service. Speaking as an ISP tech (rural, WISP and DSL), we have a small enough network to enforce such policies, though we've never gone so far as to treat it as a criminal matter - mostly we just lock down the network, and most of the time the people have no idea that they're wide open. It's not that open networks are inherently bad; it's that most people are not prepared to manage their own WLANs and don't understand that saturation of their connection by their neighbors could cause problems for them, which causes some massive-headache-inducing support issues. The other major issue is liability, because any ISP is going to have to deal with RIAA/MPAA takedown notices and the potential for someone's connection being identified with other potentially criminal behavior. IOW, if you share your connection you get through any ISP, you're still potentially fully liable for everything that goes through that connection if you are named on the account. For us, and possibly for other ISPs, it comes down to managing support and dealing with liability/legal issues. However, if you can demonstrate you can manage your connection and/or if it's for a commercial purpose, we will not only allow it but can consult, install and support it; we just want to know about it so we can help manage potential issues, but in most cases people who just want to share their connection with their neighbors are not allowed to do so with our service. I don't think it's all that different from phone/cable/cellular services which are not really intended to be shared among a neighborhood, and the provider must put some restrictions on the service or suffer performance and support issues. I won't argue that the way it's set up with gatekeepers and the "scarce" bandwidth model is not really ideal, but we can't be too idealistic when trying to stay in business in the market as it exists (with a big telco as the largest local competitor, who keeps talking about bringing in fiber), and manage support for our network well. I would rather access to the network be handled differently than it is, and that a company such as ours be providing purely support and not so much be the gatekeeper, but for the moment we have to deal with the reality of the business. - jt On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:44 AM, David Farber <dave@farber.net> wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *"Bob Frankston" <bob2-39@bobf.frankston.com> > *Date: *October 2, 2009 10:51:37 AM EDT > *To: *<dave@farber.net>, "'ip'" <ip@v2.listbox.com> > *Cc: *"Lauren Weinstein" <lauren@vortex.com> > *Subject: **RE: [IP] "Entry level pricing" as social policy v2* > > *Resending – had to drop a pointer as NNSquad seems to have gotten > renumbered.* > > The market will likely do more than neutrality legislation to force the > carriers’ hand. > > If you want to reduce your costs by 50% simply share the connection with > your neighbor using 802.11. If you want to reduce it further then share with > everyone in your apartment building. Whether or not we get neutrality > legislation this kind of aggregation and homogenization of bits is beyond > the carriers’ control. The attempts to ban webcams and block ports are > examples of failed attempts to prevent the inevitable. I notice my port 80 > is no longer blocked. > > Sure the consumer ToS might say you can’t share it among – among whom? How > do they define the boundaries other than by intrusive social policy? > Ultimately they can’t enforce these policies. The only thing slowing this > casual aggregation is a lack of understanding and self-imposed limitations. > If a lack of knowledge is the carriers’ only protection then the trend > should accelerate. > > In the loft example the building owners act as aggregators who then share > the capacity. When will it become the norm for MDUs (apartment houses) to > provide connectivity the same way the lofts do, and then housing projects > and communities and then … > > The end game is what I’m now calling Ambient Connectivity<http://rmf.vc/?n=IAC> > . > > As to “subsidizing running fiber to…” well that’s an unnecessarily > mean-spirited argument and self-defeating. We already have a principle of > inclusion with postal delivery and roads -- running a shared fiber is far > less expensive than other infrastructures so why work to deny people the > right to be included in society? They already have phone service – how much > more does it cost to light it up as DSL with repeaters along the way? If > they have fiber links as part of it then all-the-better. If they have party > lines then fine – it’s a network now with separate VoIP paths. And fill in > gaps with radios. Certainly tractors need to be online. > > So can we stop pretending that it’s 1900 when we’d run a separate wire > miles and miles and miles to each subscriber. We’re simply talking about > communicating among ourselves using bits. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net] > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 09:45 > To: ip > Subject: [IP] "Entry level pricing" > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> > Date: October 1, 2009 10:29:40 PM EDT > To: shannonm@gmail.com > Cc: dave@farber.net > Subject: Re: [IP] "Entry level pricing" > > Shannon McElyea <shannonm@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have hughesnet -- the only carrier to serve where I live. It's > > expensive horrible and a threshold of 300 mb per day and if you go > > over it throttles to almost nothing for 48 hours!! Try getting any > > work done with that. > > My wife works in Mountain View and takes highway 101 to work -- the > only highway to serve where we live. The gas prices are expensive; the > commute is horrible and the traffic throttles to almost nothing for 48 > minutes!! Try getting any work done with that. > > Nevertheless, we still live in a non-rural part of the SF bay area > because the benefits outweigh the costs. It's true that we have much > faster Internet connections than you do, but I suspect that you have > cleaner air and cheaper acreage. > > If all you care about is speedy Internet access, there are plenty of > new lofts in San Francisco that will be happy to give you 100 MB/sec+ > rates with no caps for a dollar a day. > > I know I'm being a little cute, but there are some important issues > here: If you live in a low-population-density rural area where your > only choice is HughesNet satellite service, should IPers living in > high-density Manhattan condos be taxed to subsidize running fiber to > the hinterboonies? And maintaining it after storm damage? If it's not > economically feasible to wire your house at a profit, who will (or > should) subsidize faster service for you? I know you didn't call for > such measures, but other IPers have. > > BTW, it looks like you might be able to upgrade from the "Pro" to the > "Elite" plan and boost your cap from 300 MB to 500 MB: > http://consumer.hughesnet.com/faq/fair-access-policy.cfm > > -Declan > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/> <http://www.listbox.com> > ----- End forwarded message -----