[sudo-discuss] developments in net neutrality

Sat Jan 18 19:58:07 PST 2014

Re. net neutrality, from a client of mine who runs a secure network:

There was recently a TV broadcast or two, interviewing various people
who are involved in the policy debate and responses to it.

One was the person who wrote the brief to the FCC, that opposed net
neutrality in the form that existed until just recently.  You would be
tempted to think of him as The Badguy, but that would be mistaken.  He
said that his underlying reasoning was that the existing regulatory
regime was a patchwork of nonsense, and what's needed is to regulate
these companies as "telecommunications services" rather than as
"information services."  That is, AT&T and Comcast aren't just the
equivalent of movie studios and publishers, they own the infrastructure
and wires over which the information is delivered, and the ownership of
the wires should be legally determinative. 

This position, to re-classify AT&T and Comcast as "telecommunications
services," has become known as "the nuclear option" because it would
impose absolute net neutrality without need of a regulatory Rube
Goldberg contraption that could be subverted.

The other was a high-up at Google.  I've made no secret of my dislike of
Google ("a surveillance-monster on a scale that makes NSA look like a
pussycat"), but this time it appears they might do some good.  The
Google legal guy was asked if he would be seeking FCC to restore the
previous regulations.  In reply he said something that my client
interpreted as implying that Google was going to go for the nuclear
option. 

So if Google and a few other biggies do indeed go for the nuclear
option, we may see the return of iron-clad net neutrality that leaves no
wiggle-room for AT&T and Comcast to interfere with others' services and
content on their network.  Though, we should still be pushing a hardcore
grassroots agenda here, so we don't just end up with another set of
biggies carving up the pie and leaving us with crumbs. 

Ultimately the solution is to separate "carriers" from "content." 
Comcast and AT&T should be treated as common carriers that can have no
role in producing content for their networks.  Each would be divested of
its content-related elements in much the same way as the Bell System
regulated telephone monopoly was broken up decades ago.  Ironically, the
breakup of Bell is what led directly to the present state of affairs
where carriers can call themselves "information services" and censor
their networks.  But perhaps, as with Pandora's Box, there's "Hope" at
the bottom of that chest full of plagues. 

-G.

=======

On 14-01-17-Fri 8:59 PM, Romy Ilano wrote:
> Realistically I think the only way to get net neturality back is some
> kind of alliance of powerful corporate start-ups like Google + NetFlix
> + Amazon (especially since Amazon has Amazon Prime instant video + AWS).
>
> I know that Google is pro net neutrality but I'm surprised they
> weren't able to push back.  Seeing as how money is what makes these
> kinds of things talk, what went wrong? Was something just not
> organized properly in this battle?
>
> South Korea, which is years ahead of us in terms of infrastructure
> with its net etc. has already been facing issues when its net
> neutrality was struck down a few years ago, and ISPs were allowed to
> block VoIP services like Kakao Talk.
>
> They're running into conflicts over Smart TV - I feel that just like
> their gaming industry, maybe this is our future. Maybe there just
> needs to be a stronger corporate coalition.
>
> http://gigaom.com/2012/02/10/smart-tvs-cause-a-net-neutrality-debate-in-s-korea/
>
>
>
>
> =============================
>
> Romy Ilano
> romy at snowyla.com <mailto:romy at snowyla.com>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Hol Gaskill <hol at gaskill.com
> <mailto:hol at gaskill.com>> wrote:
>
>     attached is an interesting/frightening graphic that's been making
>     the rounds.  per info from jenny, sudo mesh has so far been able
>     to foil google's attempts to pull information but i'm not sure how
>     that applies to ISPs' practice of performing deep packet
>     inspection.  I think getting behind/setting up tor nodes will help
>     slow them down but it will be an arms race as long as we have an
>     oligopoly on internet connectivity.  any other ideas?  also if
>     anyone has advice on setting up a tor exit node, I'm trying to set
>     up a home file server this weekend and would like to start
>     experimenting.  if htere is a server just sitting at sudo room,
>     i'd be glad to borrow it and run an exit node, maybe host some
>     stuff for people.
>
>     cheers
>
>
>     Jan 14, 2014 07:36:07 PM, romy at snowyla.com
>     <mailto:romy at snowyla.com> wrote:
>     yowsers!
>     >http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-rejects-fcc-rules-on-internet-service-providers.html
>
>     >
>     >Would SudoMesh mitigate the ill effects of the disappearance of
>     net neutrality?
>     >
>     >=============================
>     >Romy Ilano
>     romy at snowyla.com <mailto:romy at snowyla.com>
>     >
>     >
>
>
>     >
>     >_______________________________________________
>     >sudo-discuss mailing list
>     >sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>     <mailto:sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
>     >http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>     >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20140118/6189dc55/attachment.html>