North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal
The proposal is designed to straighten out the current misguided discourse on NN, which actually would end up ending NN either way -- the "pro-NN" legislative proposals would essentially say similar applications need to be treated the same, thereby authorizing the breaking of the separation of layers. Our point is, as I think you see, that the merits of the Internet's design are for application flexibility as provided by the nature if the transport, and this design needs to be recognized in policy that intends to enforce neutrality, because that design will be lost as a result of the current discussion. Many observe that present practices already block or disfavor certain applications. We want those practices to be the substance of the discussion, and the discussion should be on the right basis. The proposal is designed to accomplish that (and we believe we have already had that effect -- Snowe and Dorgan may have modified their amendment to the Stevens Bill, withdrawing their original proposal and introducing a simple additional principle to the FCC's list, in response to the concerns we expressed that they would unintentionally actually end up ending NN. And, while common carrier is not necessarily the only solution, we think that the consumer groups pursuing NN settled on a position of going back to common carrier a la Internet II as a result of the concerns we raised). A lot of times, we've found many people looking at NN in more deterministic or behavioral terms, as in rules about practices that network providers must obey. The thing to "get" about this proposal is that if it passed, the result is really to preserve and separate the standards. If everybody proceeded to offer the same services, with little tiny asterisked notices in their advertising that "this is not Internet per US Code XXX" we'd still achieve the critical outcome. We think it's the right position to present, and it's critical that it be presented now. Of course, we can't exactly fault people who are engaged in the discussion at the level of what existing practices are. NANOG folks would either sign out of simple dedication end-to-end purity, or knowing that starting from this place, other issues will be addressed appropriately. And note, it is designed not to legislate engineering -- only to say that what may be called Internet needs to actually follow the standard, described here in abstract terms in terms of the router behavior. This preserves the standards against their being trumped by incumbents who are asserting they can go ahead and offer priced, tiered services, and against letting local peering policies of certain incumbents (or port blocking practices of "consumer internet," etc.) from gaining priority due to their position in the market. Seth [email protected] wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:25:55 EDT, Seth Johnson said: > > > (2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges > > a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact > > provide access to the Internet in accord with the above > > definition, regardless whether additional proprietary > > content, information or other services are also > > provided as part of a package of services offered to > > consumers. > > So how does all this mumbo-jumbo square up with the common practices of > blocking SMTP and the 135-139/445 ports to protect your own infrastructure from > the mass of malware that results if you don't block it? And does this mean > that my Verizon DSL isn't 'The Internet' because the customer side of the modem > hands me a DHCP address in RFC1918 space? For bonus points - is the DSL *still* > "not the Internet" if I bring my own DSL modem or hand-configure the DSL one to > mitigate the effects of NAT brain damage? > > What percentage of cable and DSL access is an "unfair or deceptive act" > per the definition of this? > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature -- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.