FCC Boss Calls For Net Neutrality (T, VZ, CMCSA, GOOG)

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
> Date: September 19, 2009 17:39:27 EDT
> To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] FCC Boss Calls For Net Neutrality (T, VZ, CMCSA,  
> GOOG)

> At 02:48 PM 9/19/2009, David Reed wrote:
>
> > I understand Glass is a smal businessman.   What I don't understand  
> > is why he argues that small businesses are the target of this rule,
>
> Small, rural, and independent ISPs are the target of this rule,  
> because they are the ones which pay the most for Internet bandwidth  
> and most need to manage and ration that bandwidth and prevent abuse  
> of their networks. Also, not having the incredibly deep pockets of a  
> Comcast, they are the least able to protest arbitrary actions -- or  
> ones not authorized by law -- such as that taken against Comcast  
> last year.
>
> >  or that small businesses should be given the right to read  
> > contents of packets
>
> Only by reading the contents of packets -- not only the addresses  
> within them but also other information such as URLs to be processed  
> by a transparent cache -- can a network provider provide good service.
>
> And all network providers must and do have the right to monitor  
> their networks. Not only is it necessary to proper maintenace and  
> operation of the network, but operators are required by law  
> (specifically, CALEA) to have this capability and to be prepared to  
> activate it quickly and at any time.
>
> > and discriminate based on content.
>
> The word "discriminate" has many meanings -- some of them  
> emotionally loaded.
>
> The fact is that network providers can and must draw a distinction  
> (the non-pejorative meaning of the word "discriminate") between  
> packets bound for different destinations and between those which  
> must be processed and prioritized differently.
>
> Our ISP, for example, sorts Web browsing traffic into a different  
> set of "pipes" from other traffic. These pipes are asymmetrical --  
> because Web traffic is predominantly downstream -- and are also  
> managed by transparent Web caches to accelerate performance and  
> reduce bandwidth requirements. Much special processing goes on  
> "behind the scenes," but the user sees no difference in the results  
> of his or her browsing other than faster page fetches and lower  
> monthly bills.
>
> What's more, every ISP which operates an electronic mail server  
> (which means virtually every ISP) can and must discriminate against  
> spam -- which is, yes, discrimination on the basis of content.  
> (Because of the poor framing of the CAN-SPAM law, much spam is not  
> illegal, though it should be. So -- yes -- providing this important  
> service does mean blocking legal content.)
>
> > As far as I know, package delivery services do fine without opening  
> > boxes, even when they are one-person bicycle couriers.  That's what  
> > is meant by non-discriminatory service.
>
> This analogy is not appropriate, because packets are not "boxes."  
> They are simply collections of bits, no part of which is any more  
> "hidden" than any other.
>
> That being said, anyone who has ever shipped a parcel via UPS knows  
> that they, like other courier services, require a description of the  
> contents of each package and reserve the right not to ship anything  
> they choose not to handle.
>
> What's more, package delivery services can and do accept payment for  
> prioritized delivery of certain parcels. In some cases, the sender  
> covers the extra cost; in others, the recipient does (either  
> directly or indirectly). But no one would assert that the  
> availability of "express delivery" of packages is a bad idea. Yet,  
> amazingly, advocates of "network neutrality" do.
>
> > And taxicabs are required as a condition of their license by a city  
> > to carry anyone, regardless of race or sex.
>
> To my knowledge, there has never been an instance of an Internet  
> provider refusing to provide service to anyone on the basis of race,  
> sex, or any similar trait.
>
> > ISPs operate (no matter what the scale) based on licenses from  
> > government.  Even Brett's ISP does.
>
> This is incorrect. Absolutely no license is required for one to  
> become an ISP (though legislation which failed in the House a few  
> years back would have required it). In fact, because my state and  
> city do not require business licensing, my business does not even  
> have a local business license. (It does have a sales tax license,  
> which allows me to buy equipment for resale to my customers without  
> paying sales tax and then collect sales tax when I sell it at  
> retail. And I do have one -- count it -- one license from the FCC  
> which allows me to establish microwave links on a shared frequency  
> band (3650 to 3700 MHz). However, this license is not required for  
> me to be an ISP, and in fact I am currently not using it.
>
> > I really like small businesses.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't  
> > have to follow *any* rules.
>
> No, but they should not be subjected to unnecessary rules which  
> would cripple them, create excessive costs for them, or prevent them  
> from competing or innovating.
>
> > (and the slam of Google is really weird.  Google isn't even an ISP.)
>
> Google is not an ISP, but it has set itself at odds with ISPs by  
> lobbying heavily to regulate them. Its efforts seem to be  
> particularly directed toward preventing a future Google from arising  
> to challenge it, and also toward decreasing ISPs' revenues while  
> increasing its own. Google's agenda poses a particular threat to  
> small and independent ISPs, against which it has further  
> discriminated -- there's that word again -- by failing to offer them  
> a way to cache Google's content.
>
> In any event, I found one remark made by Julius Genachowski at the  
> Congressional oversight hearing this Thursday (September 17, 2009)  
> -- the one to which I linked in my previous posting -- to be  
> particularly germane. The Chairman said:
>
> "When the market works and there's sufficient competition, then the  
> FCC has no need to act. When the market isn't working, and the  
> consumers could benefit from policies to promote competition, then  
> the Commission *must* act."
>
> If the FCC follows this sensible principle, it will immediately look  
> into the issue of "special access" overcharges, which indeed are the  
> result of a failed market. It will likewise decline to impose any  
> form of "network neutrality" regulation -- not only because it is  
> not empowered to do so by statute but also because no problem exists  
> that would be "corrected" by such regulation. The market is working,  
> and there is vibrant and growing competition. Our ISP has both  
> gained customers from other ISPs and lost customers to them due to  
> consumer preferences regarding network management, and I expect that  
> this healthy selection process will continue. There is no need for a  
> "fairness doctrine" for the Internet, any more than there is for  
> television or print media.
>
> --Brett Glass



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com