Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

Mike:

I know Mr. Glass thinks of me as a not knowledgeable network professional, but I hope you know I’ve been doing “ISP 
stuff” for a couple decades. I know how to work the system. There really are not any other broadband providers in my 
area. Hell, LTE doesn’t even work well in my house, and I am less than a dozen miles from the center of Boston.

But more importantly, even if there were a second provider, how do you expect Joe & Mary User to find that provider if 
I cannot? (Not trying to be arrogant, just saying I am more experience in this field than the average consumer.)

Broadband competition in the US is a myth, at least for most people. At best, competition is the exception, not the 
rule. At worst, it’s a thinly veiled monopoly. Hell, they brag about it being a duopoly where they can, as if that’s a 
great thing. Comcast’s chairman brags that Time Warner & Comcast do not compete in any cities.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 6:35 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:
>
> Are there really no others or are the ones that are there just marketing themselves poorly? Any nearby you could 
> convince to expand? 
>
> Over my WISP's coverage, I have at least 13 WISP competitors, 7 broadband wireline and nearly that many enterprise 
> fiber. I admit that may be exceptional. 
>
>
>
>
> ----- 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>
> The Brothers WISP 
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net> 
> To: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org> 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:25:54 PM 
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal 
>
> Thanks, I was a bit confused why you said it, which is apparently because I was confused. :-) 
>
> I agree we need to do a better job educating users why this is important. 
>
> And just so my opinion is clear, if there were a true market, I would not mind ISPs who did this (with proper 
> notice). Unfortunately, over half of all households in the US have one or fewer choices for broadband providers. I am 
> one of them. What do I do if my ISP wants to collect my data? VPN everything? 
>
> -- 
> TTFN, 
> patrick 
>
> > On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote: 
> >
> > It was more a plea to educate the list on why this matters vs. doom and gloom with a little more gloom and a little 
> > less Carmack. Instead I got more of the sky is falling. 
> >
> > Note that I don't intend to ever do this at my ISP, nor my IX. 
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- 
> > Mike Hammett 
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> 
> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> 
> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> 
> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> 
> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> 
> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> 
> > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net <mailto:patrick () ianai net>> 
> > To: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>> 
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:12:15 PM 
> > Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal 
> >
> > Mike: 
> >
> > My guess is you do not. 
> >
> > Which is -precisely- why the users (proletariat?) need to find a way to stop you. Hence laws & regulations. 
> >
> > Later in this thread you said “we are done here”. Would that you were so lucky. 
> >
> > -- 
> > TTFN, 
> > patrick 
> >
> > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net <mailto:nanog () ics-il net>> wrote: 
> > >
> > > Why am I supposed to care? 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- 
> > > Mike Hammett 
> > > Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> > >
> > > Midwest Internet Exchange 
> > >
> > > The Brothers WISP 
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > >
> > > From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk () gsp org <mailto:rsk () gsp org>> 
> > > To: nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org> 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4:45:25 PM 
> > > Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal 
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:45:04PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: 
> > > > The claim oft presented by people favoring this customer abuse is that 
> > > > the sold data is anonymous. But it's been well-established that very 
> > > > simple data aggregation techniques can develop signatures that reveal 
> > > > the identity of people in anonymized data. 
> > >
> > > This needs to be repeated loudly and often at every possible opportunity. 
> > > I've spent much of the past decade studying this issue and the most succinct 
> > > way I can put it is that however good you (generic "you") think 
> > > de-anonymization techniques are, you're wrong: they're way better than that. 
> > > Billions, and I am not exaggerating even a little bit, have been spent 
> > > on this problem, and they've been spent by smart people with essentially 
> > > unlimited computational resources. And whaddaya know, they've succeeded. 
> > >
> > > So if someone presents you a data corpus and says "this data is anonymized", 
> > > the default response should be to mock them, because there is a very high 
> > > probability they're either (a) lying or (b) wrong. 
> > >
> > > Incidentally, I'm also a signatory of the EFF document, since of course 
> > > with nearly 40 years in the field I'm a mere clueless newbie and despite 
> > > ripping them a new one about once every other month, I'm clearly a tool 
> > > of Google. 
> > >
> > > ---rsk