Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

Having worked networks with massive bandwidth, networks with a single T1 (don’t ask, just Google what a T1 is, er, 
was), and now being somewhere in the middle, I agree that the large guys sometimes forget the little guys exist. 
However, I think the change in privacy being proposed hurts -all- users, and disproportionately helps the large guys.

A tiny ISP with < 1 Gbps upstream does not have enough user data to sell or otherwise “monetize”, while the top 5-10 
ISPs have a ready and willing market for their users’ data.

Which is why this is so strange. Mr. Glass’ ISP isn’t even a nat on the ass of national broadband ISPs. Not an 
indictment, like I said, I’ve run tiny networks myself. However, this change does not help ISPs in his position. Yet he 
is claiming the EFF is fighting for the big guy by opposing this change.

Color me confused. But then again, I am a not knowledgeable network professional, so I am probably just confused.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:
>
> Many organizations clamor the FCC for regulation because they hate something about the top 10, 20, etc. ISPs. There 
> is certainly something to hate about them, but almost every time, the baby gets thrown out with the bath water and 
> little ISPs are harmed along the way. Extremes on both sides are what get attention, meanwhile nothing constructive 
> for little ISPs gets done. The policy community forgets them. 
>
> That same sort of forget about the little guys happens in technical discussions in NANOG as well. Most ISPs and most 
> web hosts have less than 1G of upstream and likely from a single provider. The technical community forgets them. 
>
>
>
>
> ----- 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>
> The Brothers WISP 
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net> 
> To: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org> 
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 6:22:27 PM 
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal 
>
> I am somehow please that Mr. Glass does not find me a “knowledgeable network professional”. It feels like a badge of 
> honor. Any other “not” knowledgeable network professionals want to come forward and accept this badge? 
>
> Personally, I find the FCC’s current rules to be sub-optimal. But saying a gov’t regulation is sub-optimal is like 
> saying water is wet. The question is not whether the regulation could be improved. It is whether the proposed changes 
> are an improvement. 
>
> To be 10000% clear: I prefer the current privacy regime over the new one being proposed. 
>
> Oh, and I do not believe the EFF is just a shill for Google. But then, I’m just a not knowledgeable network 
> professional, so what do I know? 
>
> -- 
> TTFN, 
> patrick 
>
> > On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Brett Glass <nanog () brettglass com> wrote: 
> >
> > All: 
> >
> > It's worth noting that most of EFF's list consists of individuals and/or politically connected organizations, not 
> > actual ISPs. This is for good reason. EFF was founded with the intention of creating a civil rights organization but 
> > has morphed into a captive corporate lobbying shop for Google, to which several of its board members have close 
> > financial ties. EFF opposes the interests of hard working ISPs and routinely denigrates them and attempts to foster 
> > promotes hatred of them. It also promotes and lobbies for regulations which advantage Google and disadvantage ISPs 
> > -- including the so-called "broadband privacy" regulations, which heavily burden ISPs while exempting Google from 
> > all oversight. 
> >
> > No knowledgeable network professional or ISP would support the current FCC rules. Both they AND the FCC's illegal 
> > Title II classification of ISPs must be rolled back, restoring the FTC's ability to apply uniform and apolitical 
> > privacy standards to all of the players in the Internet ecosystem. The first step is to support S.J. Res 34/H.J. Res 
> > 86, the Congressional resolution which would revoke the current FCC regulations that were written and paid for by 
> > Google and its lobbyists. So, DO contact your legislators... but do so in support of the resolutions that will 
> > repeal the regulations. It is vital to the future of the Internet. 
> >
> > --Brett Glass, Owner and Founder, LARIAT.NET 
> >
> > At 05:05 PM 3/26/2017, Peter Eckersley wrote: 
> >
> > > Dear network operators, 
> > >
> > > I'm sure this is a controversial topic in the NANOG community, but EFF and a 
> > > number of ISPs and networking companies are writing to Congress opposing the 
> > > repeal of the FCC's broadband privacy rules, which require explicit opt-in 
> > > consent before ISPs use or sell sensitive, non-anonymized data (including 
> > > non-anonymized locations and browsing histories). 
> > >
> > > If you or your employer would like to sign on to such a letter, please reply 
> > > off-list by midday Monday with your name, and a one-sentence description of 
> > > your affiliation and/or major career accomplishments.