NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
NNSquad Home Page
[ NNSquad ] Re: Neutrality in Perspective
I must disagree. On Nov 13, 2007 9:07 AM, Lauren Weinstein <email@example.com> wrote: > > It seems to me that when we get down to brass tacks, there isn't as > much disagreement about what network neutrality really is as some > players would have us believe. No. I'll give you a list in a subsequent email, and the difference between "what is kosher" and "what is not kosher" for large classes of traffic descrimination will be apparently be very different to different people. > In essence, most of the arguments are indeed about how much > non-neutrality is "necessary" or otherwise should be permitted by > ISPs, and how much collateral damage to innocent users should be > permitted under any given scenario. > For example, there is absolutely no good reason why a well-behaved > residential dynamic service user shouldn't be able to operate their > own mail servers over port 25. There are utterly valid privacy and > security reasons for wanting to do this, not to mention much better > control over mail handling overall. The problem comes up when ISPs > simply declare that an entire class of users can't use this port > or that protocol as designed, without taking into account the > variation between users. This actually seems to be an unrealistic example. There is no good reason why a RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER should have the ability to operate their own mail server, from the point of view of a rational ISP. The number of users who have a legitimate reason to operate a service on port 25, or to receive traffic on the Windows ports, is ~.1% or less. What interest does an ISP have in even creating exceptions for residential customers in this class? Should .1% of the customers require 10% of the customer service budget? The changes to customer service training? The changes to router configurations? The effect when a customer becomes misconfigured and the ISP's entire address block (including its own SMTP servers) ends up on a spam blacklist?! Or should outbound port 25 and inbound windows ports just simply be ACLed to /dev/null, and the problem of spam-bots, windows worms, and other general "health of the internet" issues just goes away? Rather, such customers who need a static IP and such abilities can pay an extra $10-50/month for a "business grade" service, and should do so. Most areas have plenty of DSL ISPs which offer a business-grade package, for a higher price, that will provide such benefits as having customer service representatives know what a "trouble ticket" means. Even the evil phone company offers business grade services where you can run your own services, not have ports filtered, and get you people with a remote clue on the other end of the line. > Satellite Internet is > relatively expensive and suffers severe bandwidth limitations at the > consumer level. Sattelite internet suffers from completely unusable LATENCY for a large class of applications. Even with 100 GB sattelite pipes, it would be unusable for VoIP, as RTT through a geosynchronous sattelite link is 560 ms. > So when we talk about what sorts of restrictions on users are > reasonable for ISPs to impose, and whether or not any given > restriction or similar activity by an ISP should be viewed as > unacceptable, I believe that it's important to keep in mind that the > ISPs are by and large not innocent bystanders being victimized, but > to a major extent have themselves created the present environment by > virtue of their various business-related decisions and motives over > time. There are very different business motives for different actions. See the subsequent email I will send on the subject.