Home page logo

interesting-people logo Interesting People mailing list archives

NETCompetition.org statement -- Such a rambling mess I don't know where to start!
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:44:36 -0400

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: August 22, 2008 12:36:46 PM EDT
To: nnsquad () nnsquad org
Cc: lauren () vortex com, dave () farber net
Subject: NETCompetition.org statement -- Such a rambling mess I don't know where to start!

The statement below from NETCompetition.org ("a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Precursor LLC and an e-forum on Net Neutrality funded
by broadband telecom, cable, and wireless companies") contains so
much rambling baloney that I won't even attempt to critique the
entire mess right now, which was authored by its chairman.

For the moment, I'll just point out two obvious stupidities.  First,
he parrots the "net neutrality advocates say all bits are equal"
nonsense, which has long been a key false propanganda talking point
for anti-neutrality forces.  The net neutrality view is not that all
bits are equal, but that there should be nondiscriminatory,
competitive access to bits and bandwidth.  There's an enormous

I'm even more "amused" by this part, where the author suggests that ISPs
should be free to block the majority of the Internet's traffic:

   Given that: over half of Internet traffic is P2P and ~90% of P2P
   traffic is illegal piracy per the US PTO; given that 40% of email is
spam per the Spam Filter Review; and given that 28% of pay per clicks
   of the large search engines are fraudulent per Click Forensics; the
majority of Internet traffic is not protected by the FCC's principles
   and can be legally blocked.

We can have a dandy argument about his P2P statistics, and just how
he plans to separate "illegal" P2P from legal P2P materials
(particularly in an encrypted environment).  We can have similar fun
getting into the intricacies of spam.  But he also seems to be
suggesting that ISPs should somehow be interfering with *search
engine* activities -- using supposed "click fraud" levels as an
excuse.  I haven't seen this particular inane argument made
seriously before, and it appears to be a transparent attack on
Google and their support of net neutrality.

I could go on but this guy's agenda is clear -- he thinks that ISPs
should be Internet cops, judges, and executioners all rolled into
one handy DPI package.

My final word for now: ENCRYPT.

NNSquad Moderator

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

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]