Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: NETCompetition.org statement -- Such a rambling mess I don't know where to start!
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:56:40 -0400
" BTW , my "yes yes yes" was not intended to endorse the "Google good, ISPs bad" there are good parts to Google and not so good as there are good ISPs and not so good. Rather the "'nondiscriminatory, competitive access to bits and bandwidth' "
Begin forwarded message: From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com> Date: August 26, 2008 9:56:11 AM EDT To: dave () farber net, "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh () syr edu>Subject: Re: [IP] Re: NETCompetition.org statement -- Such a rambling mess I don't know where to start!
I cannot believe that Lee McKnight has been taken in by the "big lie" that "Net Neutrality advocates" say "Google good, ISP's bad".
a) that is factually not true. Most Net Neutrality advocates (and there are many stripes) have as many concerns about Google's potential abuse of its dominant market position as they do about ISP's potential abuse.
b) The person who has been pushing this idea that the issue is about Google vs. ISPs is Mr. Scott Cleland. He is employed by Precursor (he is the founder, and I believe the sole employee of the DC consulting firm) and runs NetCompetition.com (the supposedly independent political group). I recommend listening to Dianne Feinstein's questioning of Mr. Cleland and his reponses at the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet last month regarding Deep Packet Inspection for marketing purposes by ISPs. His message there was that ISPs using NebuAd and Phorm were not bad, because Google was worse.
Professors (full disclosure - I am one) should take some time to gather evidence, rather than signing on to PR smears of opponents as if they are factual.
David Farber wrote:
Yes Yes Yes djf Begin forwarded message: From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh () syr edu> Date: August 25, 2008 6:01:43 PM EDT To: <dave () farber net>, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>Subject: RE: [IP] NETCompetition.org statement -- Such a rambling mess I don't know where to start!Dave, For IP if you wish:'nondiscriminatory, competitive access to bits and bandwidth' - if that's what net neutrality means then why don't they just say that?That's a policy goal that could gain broader support - some of us have been advocating that for, oh, 15 years, while making more progress outside the US than inside.Instead, the 'net neutrality'advocates risk wasting DC time and having the US fall further behind in Internet-friendly regulatory reform, by insisting a regulation can define how many neutral angels will fit on the head of a virtual pin.(Also, I still gag on the distracting 'google good, ISPs bad' manichaean mantra; it's just not that simple.)Lee -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Fri 8/22/2008 1:44 PM To: ipSubject: [IP] NETCompetition.org statement -- Such a rambling mess I don't know where to start!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 net Subject: 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 ISPsshould 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 is spam per the Spam Filter Review; and given that 28% of pay per clicks of the large search engines are fraudulent per Click Forensics; the majority 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 ------------------------------------------- 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 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)