ARTICLES| Bespoke web | Design | Editor | Works
Biochem | Garden | Links | Readings | SNIPPETS| Technology | Toronto
Bio | Biochem | Cancer | Canna | Loblaws |N N| Net | Other | Plants | Politics | Social medicine | Tech | Pollution
Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality

28/11/17 fcc

Why are you such an apologist for Pai?
Richard Sexton I'n not. He's saying the correct thing here. What's your knowledge of this stuff since 96? Quick, what year did Tony T make the net legal in via the ITU?
If you don't know these things off the top if your head the legal framework that makes all this w...See more
Richard Sexton Now, do you have a problem with any of the points Pai makes here Chris?
Chris Kantarjiev I think that the points in Pai's memo are glib talking points, and don't really do a decent job of addressing the issues. It's totally in the tone of "he said she said".
Chris Kantarjiev A more nuanced discussion, with some references, which makes me happier:
Pro-Neutrality, Anti-Title II Any regulation, including those around net neutrality, should be put to a cost-benefit… STRATECHERY.COM
Chris Kantarjiev Part of the problem is that we have mostly lost the distinction between ISP and carrier in the Internet world.
Richard Sexton Pai's article debunked these.
Do you have a substantive objection, or you just disagree?
Chris Kantarjiev Pai's article is nothing more than a press release without background or references.
Richard Sexton No, it makes some good points.
For example, all the arguments for this version of n.n are of the form "an isp might do something bad"....See more
Richard Sexton He references the rise of google ebay and paypal all pre title II. Fair point.
Chris Kantarjiev The railroads experienced immense growth before FRA.
Richard Sexton Railroads are the reasons we have antitrust laws. That Reagan gutted or ICANN would be toast.
These have zero to with the internet however. You need rails and trains to e a railway, anybody can be an isp as long as there's no barrier to entry. Different paradigm. Now, we need title II to ensure that? Quite the opposite.

Johnathan Vail Seems legit and not defensive at all. He only used the phrase "President Obama’s 2015 heavy-handed Internet regulations" about a dozen times.
Well, that's standard in this kid of stuff. When Dick Perl repatriated the US phone number system to the US*[1] the announcement he gave in DC referred to "THE ITU" with a sneer, about 17 times in 5 minutes causing Bob Shaw to glow scarlett. SOP.
The say that to make sure Obama heard. It wasn't his idea it was Hillary's but he put his name on it. They're calling hm out for doing that.
Now, does anybody have a reason we need to make new laws that only affect the net"
Ok good, then you're down with what just happened then. If you have issues with a Telco or Cable co, the FCC would love to hear from you about that.
No new net laws though. "This is not negotiable.' - alice!dmr
*[1]You may wonder why a system invented in the US would have it's numbers swiped by a bunch of Euros that took the state department five years to get back. They were trying to "help" too.
Now you have number portability - but didn't until state spent five years picking at the ITU who at the time had a friendly american as chief legal counsel.
The regulatory framework the internet is build on is a house of cards. It is not robust or mature.
May I also remind you of this:
"You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different."
The Canadian system works so well in Canada that by 1990 after every US state had an internet connection, the University of Waterloo finally for a DS0 56K connection to use for the entire university.
The reason more computers in Los Angeles had internet in 1990 than in all of Canada was because there are no regulations involved in doing this in the United States.
Those of us who had the first ISP's in this country remember well the onerous provisions of the early days. Canada still pays more for data than any country in the world so we're not the ones to look at. Korea and Japan are, they had ISDN video+data at phones booths a decade before we owuld even(finally) buy isdn here and prior to the invention of dsl and cable, that was it unless you went T1. Then you got to the border. Skype was not legal then and if it wasn't for one of our guys finessing the ITU to blindly do the right thing, would not be legal today.
The net doesn't need any laws to fix problems. Quite the opposite is true.

It's a clinton initiative. I know because I was there to watch her do it. Her husbands white house called me and I had to go to new york to meet her people with that we're meeting everyone. So what why I giggle when you tell me years later what's actually going on. A lot of the background is covered in Mueller's "Ruling the Root" book. I've never read it but they tell me I'm in there. MIT Press, Amazon has it. Why don't you buy one, read it then send it to me then I can read it too and see what funny thing I said Milton stuck in there.

Pro: Vint wrote the last 3/4 of TCP.
Con: Somebody else wrote the first 1/4 and NCP and IP Somebody else put it into Unix. Tried to make all email pay-for while at MCI/Enron. Bob "Ethernet" Metcalk dubbed him "Darth Cerf" for this. Single handedly made domain names pay for while on the FNCAC that advised the NSF to direct its client NSI to begin charging. Isoc had had it's eyes on a domain tax since the 1976 Montreal IETF meeting where they "threw the bums out".
Sir Timbit took Einar Stefferud MIME that he had Nat Borenstein implement, One of Stef's students work, HTML, and somebody else's Hyperlink and by 1989 had something half a dozen other poeple had already had running by the mid 80s. It's just color runoff. With menus.
Neither of these two built the net when the do best is promote themselves and if you've ever sen them at work they're slick.
I saw a president once honor some of these guys, Vint and Sir Timbit were there and Bob Kahn (DOI/Handle guy) who wrote most of tcp/ip and the president walked toward timbit and darth whose faces lit up and he went straight for Kahn and shook his hand.
Vint cerf is the reason you pay a domain tax. I like Vint a lot but we disagree on a few things.
I wrote the software Timbit used to make printouts. That's why I know he had access to a postscript printer so there's no excuse for using htlm. That needs to be undone to roll back some of the damage he's done. And there's enough of that to go around and with any luck the administration is on a roll.

net neutrality thread:
False. We don't need laws that only target the net to fix problems with telcos.
Do we want to go into the details of how a california corporation already takes 80 cents tax form each domain name and you can't vote on it because there's no members to an organization the UDG saud must have members who can vote. No taxation without representation. Why is this not ok in the real world but ok for the Internet? Also keep in mind there is no "public" internet. Each and every piece is 100% privately owned. How do you get off telling people what to do with THEIR network? Everyone's' free to do their own business model, even free, which I notice nobody worried about. You don't get to tell somebody else how to run their network, if you think you're that important try telling their dog what to do.

net neutrality thread:
I'n not. He's saying the correct thing here. What's your knowledge of this stuff since 96? Quick, what year did Tony T make the net legal in via the ITU?
If you don't know these things off the top if your head the legal framework that makes all this work is going to seem a bit odd. But you can't talk about this stuff without knowing it, it's subtle and nuanced.
Either I'm doing this because I know how the net works and love it or I'm Just evil and stupid and wrong. You know the things I"ve done, what's your guess?
Now, the best way I can explain this is there were some ideas proposed that meant new laws would apply to the internet. The justification given was "cable and telcos are bad bad poeple". So then why not change the way telcos and cablecos are regulated? I don't think fixing that problem by making new laws about the Internet which might have a deleterious effects down the line is the proper way to do that. Do you? If the Title II regs passed they're be the third law made about the net so far. How well do you think the first two went? If you don;t know what they are you just disqualified yourself from the conversation. What's under discussion is a very specific legal framework and how best to adjust it. 99.99% of the world is clueless about the this, lacking the expertise, xperience and legal training. But, I'm sure we agree no new laws need to be made about the net so whether you know it or not, you agree.

Remember me, buy my shirts!
pop art