Interesting People mailing list archives
NETCompetition.org statement -- Such a rambling mess I don't know where to start!
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:44:36 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> Date: August 22, 2008 12:36:46 PM EDT To: nnsquad () nnsquad org Cc: lauren () vortex com, dave () farber netSubject: NETCompetition.org statement -- Such a rambling mess I don't know where to start!
The statement below from NETCompetition.org ("a wholly-owned subsidiary of Precursor LLC and an e-forum on Net Neutrality funded by broadband telecom, cable, and wireless companies") contains so much rambling baloney that I won't even attempt to critique the entire mess right now, which was authored by its chairman. For the moment, I'll just point out two obvious stupidities. First, he parrots the "net neutrality advocates say all bits are equal" nonsense, which has long been a key false propanganda talking point for anti-neutrality forces. The net neutrality view is not that all bits are equal, but that there should be nondiscriminatory, competitive access to bits and bandwidth. There's an enormous difference! I'm even more "amused" by this part, where the author suggests that ISPs should be free to block the majority of the Internet's traffic: Given that: over half of Internet traffic is P2P and ~90% of P2P traffic is illegal piracy per the US PTO; given that 40% of email isspam per the Spam Filter Review; and given that 28% of pay per clicks
of the large search engines are fraudulent per Click Forensics; themajority of Internet traffic is not protected by the FCC's principles
and can be legally blocked. We can have a dandy argument about his P2P statistics, and just how he plans to separate "illegal" P2P from legal P2P materials (particularly in an encrypted environment). We can have similar fun getting into the intricacies of spam. But he also seems to be suggesting that ISPs should somehow be interfering with *search engine* activities -- using supposed "click fraud" levels as an excuse. I haven't seen this particular inane argument made seriously before, and it appears to be a transparent attack on Google and their support of net neutrality. I could go on but this guy's agenda is clear -- he thinks that ISPs should be Internet cops, judges, and executioners all rolled into one handy DPI package. My final word for now: ENCRYPT. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator ------------------------------------------- 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
Current thread:
- NETCompetition.org statement -- Such a rambling mess I don't know where to start! David Farber (Aug 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: NETCompetition.org statement -- Such a rambling mess I don't know where to start! David Farber (Aug 25)
- Re: NETCompetition.org statement -- Such a rambling mess I don't know where to start! David Farber (Aug 26)