Re: A call for less heated rhetoric]

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Author requested  anonymizing djf
> Dave,
>
> I think it's pointless the way the network neutrality discussion is  
> being
> framed (on the list at least).  Could we perhaps all agree to a common
> model with less heated rhetoric for either side?

Not going to happen. There's too much money at stake. This is the tech
version of (political) proxy warfare between two superpowers.

For my own edification, I'm trying to get a handle on how the whole
thing works politically. As in, to what extent is it a giant game of
follow-the-leader, and which of the various players are manipulative
cynics versus "useful idiots"?

> #1 The ISPs are not rapacious, exploitative bastards.

The ZOMG!-ISP's-ARE CENSORS!!! campaign is a deliberate strategy. I
think it's pretty clear it originated as a political counter-weight to
the idea of ISP's making exclusive partnership deals.

The point is that it's not going away, as it's a political tactic.
Somebody high up the chain decided it would make a great lie, and
they're going to keep pumping it out.

> #2 Users  are not "abusing" their network connections, they are  
> using them
> in the way IP and TCP work.

Users aren't. Some start-up companies are.

> The network is _inherently_ peer to peer, by design.  "Client" and  
> "server"
> are concepts that only apply on a per-connection basis, and even  
> then only
> with a subset of protocols.    To complain about "peer to peer use" is
> meaningless.  "AA host is a host from coast to coast."

Let's put it this way - if a company's business model relies on users
donating bandwidth, that's abuse of network connections.

And you know how the rest of that doggerel runs:

A host is a host,
From coast to coast
And nobody talks to a host that's close,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unless the host that isn't close
Is busy, hung, or dead.

Which is what Comcast's traffic-shaping was all about (i.e. trying to
have users NOT talk to hosts that aren't close, by having the host
that isn't close, be busy, hung, or dead - RST packets)

> We can get into _how_ the ISPs interfere with traffic or how self- 
> righteous
> this or that person is, but at the end of the day there is a problem  
> and
> the situation will have to give.

Absolutely. And both superpowers want the other one to get the "give".

> This isn't a new problem.  The phone companies struggled with it for  
> over a
> century.  Even 18 years ago when a couple of other guys and I set  
> up  up
> the retail ISP TLG we had the same sorts of problems.  But it's true  
> we
> didn't call our users assholes and my understanding is that the  
> reverse was
> not true either.

You didn't have the money for lobbying firms.




-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com