[geeks] the end of the internet as we know it.

[gsm at mendelson.com]

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 07:42:41AM -0400, Steve Haavik wrote:

> 15          ''(d) REASONABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT.--Noth-
> 16 ing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an Inter-
> 17 net access provider from engaging in reasonable network
> 18 management consistent with the policies and duties of
> 19 nondiscrimination and openness set forth in this Act. For
> 20 purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(5), a network man-
> 21 agement practice is a reasonable practice only if it fur-
> 22 thers a critically important interest, is narrowly tailored
> 23 to further that interest, and is the means of furthering
> 24 that interest that is the least restrictive, least discrimina-
> 25 tory, and least constricting of consumer choice available.
>  1 In determining whether a network management practice
>  2 is reasonable, the Commission shall consider, among other
>  3 factors, the particular network architecture or technology
>  4 limitations of the provider.

I still think people who want to have their web pages flash down faster
will sue to require HTTP improvment under the above, the same with people
who want their downloads faster, people running SKYPE, VoIP users, etc. 

In the end you can't manage a network properly without discrimination.

Why should VoIP have priority? Seriously, can you make a legal case for the
improvement of one protocol/function over another? By allowing one class
of user (such as those that use VoIP) to have priority over another (someone
playing games from steam for example), you have created a classed or
two tiered network. 

In fact, people who use telephones have plenty of choices, they can get
a POTS phone, they can get a cell phone, they can get a sat phone, they
can get a ham radio license or an FRS or CB radio. People playing on
line games only have one choice, to use their ISP, so don't they rate
priority?

You can also argue that since VoIP phones do not provide the same tax
revenue, do not provide the same service (E911), are not as reliable
(dependent upon the Internet) etc, they do not further a critically
important interest, something I expect that everyone reading this would
never want to see enshrined in law.

What also worries me is that you can't sell a service that is better than
any other service, for example, an Internet connection optimized for 
VoIP, game playing, watching on demand video, etc.

> I do have to wonder when the first jackass is going to try to use this to 
> sue their local library for filtering their (free) wireless internet 
> access.

That's already been done without the law. Many places can not legally filter
their internet and library computers have been taken over by homeless people
looking at porn.

BTW, the law says nothing about price, free is subject to the same restrictions
as pay. 

Anyone remember the AlterNet? 

Geoff.
-- 
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm at mendelson.com  N3OWJ/4X1GM