NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)

At 03:09 PM 2/29/2008, Barry Gold wrote:
>Hah!  There you go again with a loaded term.  Blocking isn't "mitigation", it's disruption.

Blocking is the strongest and most complete form of mitigation. Some folks, like Comcast, use a much lighter touch, but the value of treading so lightly is questionable. We, as an ISP in a rural college town, find that we have to push back much harder. P2P would take down our network if we let it.

>I notice you ignored that part of my message when you chose what to reply to.

I'd be pretty tedious if I always replied to everything that was said. I'm doing an awful lot of replying right now, alas, because many of my colleagues on this list who agree with me are choosing to lurk. (I really hope that they'll come out of the shadows and post.)

>Not that it matters.  You (collectively) just going to make things worse for yourselves.  The more you dig into user's bitstreams, the more people will switch to IPSec, https, and other encrypted schemes.  

The only motivation for doing this would be that one is violating his agreement with his ISP and wants to conceal it. ISPs will also be able to infer what is being done by the quantity of the traffic and the behavior of the node. And they'll throttle and block it for the sake of their honest customers, who -- thankfully -- are the majority.

>The really bad thing about this, from my POV, is that you, the little guy, are caught in the middle.  YOu can try to be a good guy about P2P and everything else, 

We are. We're being a "good guy" by mitigating P2P (sorry if you don't like the term, but since it's the scourge of our network and a violation of our TOS we think it's appropriate) so that our honest customers can get good service. 

>but what's really going to affect things are the behaviors of Comcast, Time Warner, and a couple of other big players. 

And "kangaroo courts," such as the one that was held in Boston. What an embarrassing, one-sided circus! 

>If they decide to start adding advertisements to people's webpages, everything will go to https because Google doesn't want other people putting ads on (or above) their webpages, 

Whether those ads appear is between the ISP and the customer. It's none of Google's business.

>and neither does any other major commercial site.  And if they persist in resetting P2P sessions, everything will go to IPsec.

No. The miscreants will go to IPSec and thus will become easier to identify.

>It's sort of like watching the end of a tragedy, everything just falls down and you can see it coming but you can't do anything about it.

I'm doing plenty about it. I'm going to speak out -- for the sake of my livelihood and for the sake of my customers. Just as I'm doing here.

--Brett Glass