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: Civil Rights Groups Wants P2P Throttling to Preserve Rights (or something like that)

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Kelly Setzer wrote:

> Vint Cerf wrote:
> > these people don't seem to recognize that the interference of the
> > broadband providers is an abridgment of their ability to speak.
> > amazing. welcome to 1984, you have entered a time warp. Maybe this is
> > the Bizarro planet.
> I thought the bogeyman in 1984 was the government?

The game of kings is played on a different field now.  Indeed, if chess
were reinvented today, there would be pieces representing media on the
board, as they are as strong a tool of control to ruling parties as the
church, represented by the bishops, the military/police, represented by
the knights, and the mafia, represented by the rooks.

Because of this, I posit that the media (major corporate ISP's included)
represents a 4th branch of modern American government, and should be
viewed as such.

Notwithstanding, the bogeyman you mention still exists, as apparently the
intelligence community in the US is allowed to tap the backbone at will,
and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.

> If one has a choice
> between having an ISP interfere with their communications and having the
> federal government interfere with their communications, it seems
> imminently preferable to choose ISP interference.

What if the ISP is simply a tool of government policy in this case?

> There might be
> another ISP to get your service from, but there is only one Federal
> Government.  Considering our government's recent regulatory history with
> communications and digital media, I'm surprised anyone would be rushing
> to our government (or any government) for relief.
> I happen to strongly disagree with the views of Brett Glass regarding
> his network management practices.  However, if I was his customer, I
> would be able to cancel my service.  If I disagree with federal
> regulations, I can't cancel those.

Yes you can.  There is both the mechanism of legislature, which is often
out of reach for the consumer, and the mechanism of civil disobedience.
Further, thanks to a relatively neutral net, you can publish whatever you
have to say from your own premises, with your own equipment.

> The coalition mentioned below may be
> using tortured logic, but it at least deserves more than an illiterate
> dismissal.  How about a more thoughtful critique, Mr. Cerf?
> Kelly
>    [ Well, my initial attempt to close this thread appears to have
>      failed.  Let's go a couple more rounds and then, as
>      Bullwinkle would say, "This time for sure!"
>             -- Lauren Weinstein
>                NNSquad Moderator ]
> > On Mar 3, 2008, at 8:54 AM, Edge, Ronald D wrote:
> >
> >> It is sort of hard to know where to begin when confronted with
> >> ignorance like this:
> >>
> >> "The U.S. Federal Communications Commission should allow broadband
> >> providers to manage their networks and slow "bandwidth hogs," despite
> >> concerns that such practices arbitrarily target some customers, said
> >> a coalition of seven civil rights groups."
> >>
> >> "Net neutrality rules for broadband providers would protect bandwidth
> >> hogs at the expense of other customers and civic organizations, said
> >> the coalition, which includes the National Black Chamber of Commerce,
> >> Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association, League of
> >> Rural Voters and National Council of Women's Organizations."
> >>
> >> "The coalition filed comments with the FCC Thursday in the agency's
> >> inquiry into Comcast's slowing of some P-to-P (peer-to-peer) traffic.
> >> "Regulations prohibiting network management risk undermining free
> >> speech on the Internet by allowing P2P traffic to overwhelm the
> >> network and prevent non-P2P traffic from reaching its destination,"
> >> the coalition said in its filing. "The effective prioritization of
> >> P2P traffic would represent an altogether new type of 'back of the
> >> bus' second-class status for our speech on broadband networks -- and
> >> ought to be resoundingly rejected." "
> >>
> >> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/022908-civil-rights-groups-fcc-should.html?code=nldailynewsam125479
> >>
> >>
> >> Apparently I woke up in everything is opposite land this morning, at
> >> least that is how I read their 'thinking', and I use the term loosely.
> >>
> >> Ron.
> >>
> >> Ronald D. Edge
> >> Director of Information Systems
> >> Indiana University Intercollegiate Athletics
> >> edge@indiana.edu (812)855-9010 http://iuhoosiers.com
> >>
> >> The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing.
> >> If you can fake that, you've got it made.
> >> --Groucho Marx
> >>
> >