Re: LARIAT comments to the FCC regarding Comcast

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ron Guerin <ron () vnetworx net>
Date: February 14, 2008 4:23:54 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] LARIAT comments to the FCC regarding Comcast

(for IP, if you think it adds anything)

> From: Brett Glass [brett () lariat net]

> Petitioners, as well as commenters who advocate of an overly
> expansive definition of  “network neutrality,” are in essence asking
> the FCC to ban these technologies. However, these technologies
> constitute reasonable network management and are vital to keeping
> networks running smoothly – often in the face of attempts, by
> computer hardware and software, to monopolize and/or abuse them.
> Should the FCC mandate that small, independent, and/or rural ISPs
> cease to employ these and similar technological measures to ensure
> the quality of their service,  many or most small, local operators
> would have to raise prices dramatically or quit business.

Who could argue with Brett that an ISP needs to be able to manage  
their network to ensure good service for all?  The problem isn't that  
we don't trust Brett to do the right thing with his network and not to  
make promises he can't keep, it's that we don't trust our ISPs as a  
group to do those things, and there's good reason for that.  Users  
would like some assurance that ISPs are *only* managing their networks  
responsibly, and in a *neutral* manner, and not because they don't  
want to give their customers what they've been sold, so they can  
prioritize traffic to raise profits, or to suppress content they don't  
like, such as, say, criticism of members of the Internet duopoly in  
the USA.

Obviously as Brett has often said, you can't provide anyone with  
*unlimited* bandwidth, let alone your entire customer base, but if  
ISPs continue to sell *unlimited* bandwidth, then they should expect  
to be investigated by Congress, where the outcomes often leave  
everyone unhappy.  If the industry would simply abandon its false  
advertising and agreements that are on their face, impossible to  
fulfill (except for those cases where you can get out a microscope and  
read something that disclaims everything they've previously told you  
in large bold type), that would clear away a lot of these issues, and  
help clarify those that remain.

- Ron


-------------------------------------------
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