Re: It's the Internet Stupid

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh () hserus net>
Date: June 8, 2009 10:58:05 AM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>, "'Lee W McKnight'" <lmcknigh () syr edu>
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:   It's the Internet Stupid

Wonderful .. I agree with you, Lee (and funnily enough I found myself
agreeing with Milton Mueller on one of his articles on circleid not  
too long
back).

Well, if people on totally opposite sides of a whole lot of debates  
can find
themselves agreeing on this .. I think we're on to as broad a  
consensus as
you're ever going to get

Confusing lobbying slogans and serious policy - yes, that'd be the  
point of
a much longer rant I sent to IP on this, that didn't get forwarded  
(well,
because it was a rant, I guess, with examples of similar "policy
initiatives" over the last few years).

So thanks a lot for making my point for me.

        srs

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Monday, 8 June 2009 20:15
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re: It's the Internet Stupid

I agree!!!!! djf

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh () syr edu>
Date: June 8, 2009 10:07:49 AM EDT
To: "dave () farber net" <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [IP] It's the Internet Stupid

David,

For IP list if you wish:

David Isenberg says he favors DISCRIMATORY treatment of large ISPs vs
small ISPs.

To extrapolate, logically, we therefore want a new bureau at FCC
regulating large and small - because if small has privileges, we can
guess medium and large firms will look for ways to enjoy them too; and
FCC will need a process and labor force to oversee the line.

Makes sense, I am afraid,  from an NN perspective - but looks to me
like it could stupidly force 1930s class of service telco regs on the
Internet through a 'neutral' door. No thanks.

With all due respect to my colleagues and friends co-signing with
David, this is the policy mistake made when too many people confuse a
lobbying slogan for a policy debate.

Lee McKnight
Syracuse University


________________________________________
From: David Farber [dave () farber net]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 7:20 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] It's the Internet Stupid

As is often the case, the devil is in the details. djf

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David S. Isenberg (isen)" <isen () isen com>
Date: June 7, 2009 5:41:01 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    It's the Internet Stupid

Dave,

For IP per your judgement.

I'm one of the primary perpetrators of http://ItsTheInternetStupid.com

I've told Brett many times, and I'd like to say it again publicly,
that even though I favor, "prohibit[ing] discriminatory or preferential
treatment of packets based on sender, recipient or packet contents,"
I ALSO FAVOR AN EXEMPTION FOR SMALL ISPS. I don't know exactly where
"small" ends, but if the ISP is independent and serving its community
well, I wouldn't bind it to network neutrality rules so strict that
it would put the ISP out of business.

As I say, I've told Brett this many times, but he never seems to
remember. So I do hope you'll publish this to inform the readers
of the comment of his that you just published.

David I
------------------
203-661-4798 (main number, follows me everywhere)
888-isen.com (toll free)
508-548-5924 (Woods Hole)
AIM, Skype, Y!IM: david_isenberg
http://isen.com/blog
http://freedom-to-connect.net
------------------

On Jun 7, 2009, at 5:03 PM, David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
> Date: June 7, 2009 4:44:15 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] It's the Internet Stupid
>
> http://itstheinternetstupid.com/
>
> Dave, and everyone:
>
> Note that this comment to the FCC contains a plea that the FCC
> prohibit network management by Internet providers. To wit, it asks
> the agency to "prohibit discriminatory or preferential treatment of
> packets based on sender, recipient or packet contents."
>
> Sounds good on the surface -- unless one understands its full
> implications.
>
> Since the information identifying (among other things) the protocol
> being used is part of the packet contents, this would make it
> impossible to prioritize time-sensitive traffic.
>
> Likewise, if providers could not route packets to a more direct
> connection or send them at a higher speed when they were bound to or
> from specific addresses, it would be impossible for a content or
> service provider which required enhanced performance (e.g. low
> latency or jitter) to pay a surcharge for higher quality of service.
> This restriction (which would be the equivalent of prohibiting UPS
> from offering "red," "blue," and "ground" service) would kill
> innovation by precluding cutting edge technologies from ever seeing
> the light of day. It would also effectively outlaw content delivery
> networks.
>
> The comment likewise pays homage to competition, but ignores the
> fact that the regulation it recommends would fall most heavily on
> competitive providers and likely would force them out of business,
> creating a duopoly.
>
> There seem to be quite a few people who, perhaps due to
> fearmongering by lobbyists for large corporations, seem bound and
> determined to straitjacket the Internet with regulations. Alas, they
> apparently forget that the Internet could not have existed were it
> not originally designed as a loose federation of networks, each of
> which was subject to DIFFERENT acceptable use policies and
> management strategies. (Were it not designed this way, educational
> institutions, government agencies, and private companies could not
> have signed on, because no one set of policies could have fit all of
> them.)
>
> They also appear to forget that the best way to discourage something
> is to regulate it. If the signatories on this statement truly wish
> to see universal broadband deployment, they must not "monkey wrench"
> this goal by hobbling the rollout of new technologies and
> prohibiting innovation.
>
> --Brett Glass, LARIAT
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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





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