Re: My [ Dave Farber ] position on Comcastidiocy

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

I only have one concern re this note. Lauren ends with waving the magic wand of Net Neutrality.
I fail to see what this has to do with that subject unless you are interested in having Net Neutrality cover all 
posible sims in which case nothing will be done to
address real NN problems when they occur.

Dave

________________________________________
From: Lauren Weinstein [lauren () vortex com]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:34 PM
To: David Farber
Cc: nnsquad () nnsquad org
Subject: Re: [IP] My [ Dave Farber ] position on Comcastidiocy

Dave, notice the repeating pattern of how ISPs seem to be doing
business these days:

1) Without prior public notice, major technical changes are deployed
   that have significant and in some cases critical effects on their
   subscribers' ongoing applications, including crucial services like
   e-mail.

2) As users try to understand and workaround these sudden problems,
   rumors (often true, sometimes not) spread like wildfire around Net
   regarding the situation.  Often when customers ask ISPs what's
   going on they're met with blanket denials of any changes and/or
   utterly misinformed customer service agents.

3) *After the fact* (that is, when the effect is obvious to all
   and can no longer be ignored or denied) the ISP makes a public
   statement about what it has done.

If any other utility -- basic telephone service, power, water, you
name it, operated on this basis nationally, there would be calls for
Congressional investigations, not just an occasional grudging FCC
look-see.

ISPs are still operating as if this was still the experimental Net of
many years ago.  Hell, DOD wouldn't have accepted this level of
behavior even in the early days of ARPANET.  The Internet is now a
key information and communication utility that people depend on,
not simply a sideline toy to be snooped on and manipulated at will.

It's time that ISPs who won't behave like good citizens on their own
have their feet held to the fire, either by the marketplace or, if
that won't work, by other means.

These concerns are key aspects of what Network Neutrality is all
about.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
   - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com

 - - -

Dave Farber wrote:
> The debate over port 25 is interesting. BUT the idea that without
> notice they disabled by outbound email (which is NOT high volumn --
> POBOX.com handles list distribution) is IRRESPONSIBLE in the
> extreme. Also consider those who dont have access to CMU and IP
> whose mail agents set up port 25 by default. Suddenly their machine
> stops sending email and their personal and/or business suffers. I
> wonder if Comcast will refuse to let me place calls on their digital
> voice if I call too much or they just feel in the mood.
>
> This is BULL -- you know what.
>
> Dave
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com