NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Neutrality in Perspective
|
One way to look at services like port 25 blocking, email
relaying, virus checking etc is that they are optional services you could request
from an SP. I say SP, not ISP because it's just about services and not access
to some Internet out there. I'm even willing to accept some of the services as a default
but should be able to elect to get those services from any SP. I now use a
third party for my mail filtering and not my IAP (Internet Access[sic]
Provider). I use another to vouch to AOL et al that my email is well-behaved. The rational for port blocking -- with Verizon it's 80, but
25 is open, is that ... oh, who cares ... it's just a damn inconvenience and
doesn't prevent me from running a server. After all, everything on a peer
network is a server so their definitions, like much of the ToS, are nonsense or
self-serving like the artificial scarcity which makes Comcast look like a hero
with Powerboost for temporarily removing some of their restrictions. Note that today’s NAT/routers are an interesting
example of optional port blocking. Because too many of today’s computers (not
just Windows!) default to being too exposed it’s useful to block all
ports by default and then open them selectively. Thus if I do a NET USE I’m
not automatically sharing to the world. But we must be very careful in understanding
their accidental utility with architecture and not confused these logical paths
with the physical both. Future services listening on ports must be cognizant of
the net ecology – too bad Microsoft (and others) seem to be redoubling their
efforts to treat the firewall as architecture. Ultimately the solution is local ownership of local (physical)
infrastructure and a focus on the First Square Mile (FSM) rather than the First
(or Last) mile access to the emergent property we call “The Internet”
or, worse, “Internet”. The advantage of NN as a meme is that it is a proxy for insidious
structural problems that allows reporters and other children to understand that
something is wrong even if they can’t quite say what. -----Original Message----- 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. 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. It might be argued that blocking port 25 for dynamic IP
addresses *by default* may not be unreasonable, so long as that
block would be removed upon request by a well-behaved, obviously
non-spamming user. There are some ISPs that will do this, but
they are way in the minority, as far as I know. So the good
guy customers are treated in advance like crooks in most cases in this
respect. The same reasoning extends to many other aspects of the
neutrality debate. Many of these problems have been created by the
artificial scarcity in real choice of last mile high speed (broadband) ISPs
for most users. In major metro areas you can typically
choose among the giant phone company and the giant cable company, who tend
to impose their own rules often on a nationwide basis.
Satellite Internet is relatively expensive and suffers severe bandwidth limitations
at the consumer level. Telcos and cable companies have in
general fought to make it difficult for third party resellers to make
use of their outside physical plant, thereby ensuring that third party
resale access services remain limited and in some cases of
questionable longterm viability. In more rural areas, high speed Internet access choices
are typically even more constrained, sometimes reaching zero. Perhaps the best recent hope of additional options in
these regards was Google's original spectrum resale proposal, but the
vested telecoms successfully fought that back tooth and nail at
the FCC. 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. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator |