NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing to regulate the Internet and ISPs
> Lauren Weinstein
> I must admit that I am mystified regarding the message
> forwarded below. I know that Seth is not a big fan of P2P.
Well, I think it's very neat technically. But business
and politics are quite different matters.
> But it's beyond even my imagination how he can find a problem in
> wording that supports the provisioning of adequate bandwidth for
> *legal* Internet services to and from users.
To clarify, is your objection:
Factual - You don't think I'm reading the bill's text correctly?
Rhetoric - You object to the connotations of the word ("mandate") I used?
Values - You don't understand how I could not be cheering it?
Given what you write above, I'll assume we don't have a
*factual* dispute, and the issue is some combination of rhetoric and
values. That is, do we agree to the facts that the text has the effect
of requiring an ISP "provides ample bandwidth" including upstream
bandwidth ("from an end user") for P2P ("lawful ... applications")?
There is also the press release stating "The bill will also require
the FCC to examine whether carriers are blocking access to lawful
content, applications, or services.", and we know what the FCC has
examined previously.
Since I'm very much against the practice of crying WOLF! about
proposed laws, of taking a provision then squinting at it upside-down
and crosswise so as to tendentiously contort it into a grave threat
to freedom that we must all oppose *right now* (think "death panels",
or claims about outlawing anonymous blogging in the US) - I found
this noteworthy. I would certainly have been skeptical if I had
seen it reported, yet it does appear to be true.
Now, as an intellectual matter, I very much favor mandates in
many circumstances (e.g. health insurance covering pre-existing conditions).
But it is not self-evidently clear to me that P2P "ample bandwidth"
requirements in network engineering should be one of them. Not
everything which is legal is a good idea everywhere, or even
compatible with everything else which is legal. An unexamined
assumption that everything which is legal is thus compatible and
laudable, always, may be impoverishing your imagination.
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php