[governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jan 30 01:02:20 EST 2009
> [SNIP]: "It's interesting to see Google stepping up into the role of
a proactive net-neutrality watchdog."
Google as the (overwhelmingly) principal player in the content/
application layer is a great ally to ensure 'openness' in the
infrastructural/ transport layer.... However, we will need other actors
to develop tools that could reverse engineer and unravel the gates and
walls that Google builds in its content/ application layer - how it
priortises and presents search results, how does it separate commercial
from non-commercial information, how it deals with privacy in its
customization methods etc etc....
Did I hear Google say revealing some of it will compromise its
commercial interests, and the secrecy or 'non-openness' of such
information constitutes legitimate commercial secrets. In that case as
traffic management practices become increasingly more sophisticated
would telecoms at some stage not by the same logic be able to claim
secrecy of these traffic-shaping practices as legitimate commercial
secrets. Would then prying into them considered illegal ?? Yes,
telecoms need to make full disclosure statements, but so do Google. Good
though till we can use Google's muscle for helping the cause of an 'open
Internet'.
Not being cynical here, just the strong parallel with issues we have, or
will soon have, with Google automatically came to my mind. Also it
makes the point that while it is important to seek out tactical and
strategic alliances, we still may need to look at evolving globally
applicable public policy principles in the area of IG.
Parminder
Stuart Hamilton wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
>
> I thought this was interesting in light of recent discussions on congestion management etc.
>
> New Google Tools Determine if Your ISP Is Blocking BitTorrent
> http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/01/new-google-tool.html
>
> [SNIP]: "It's interesting to see Google stepping up into the role of a proactive net-neutrality watchdog."
>
> Stuart
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:Christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:21 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Cc: 'Ralf Bendrath'
> Subject: Re: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
>
> Well, nowadays, it would seem to me that there is a difference of scale
> and a difference of degree.
>
> If one bloke once picked another´s apple years and years ago, it doesn't
> mean that the whole trade in apples can now be regulated by the shipping
> companies.
>
> Just a thought,
>
> CW
>
> ------------------------
>
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> Interestingly in this context, the Internet History mailing list is
>> currently alive with confessions of network engineers who moved beyond best
>> effort networking from 1985 onwards to deal with growing volumes of telnet
>> traffic.
>>
>> Traffic shaping and packet preference has been with us from two years after
>> the introduction of TCP/IP. One example follows
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>> PO Box 429
>> Bangalow NSW 2479
>> Australia
>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>> www.ianpeter.com
>>
>>
>> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:17:21 +0000
>> From: David Mills <mills at udel.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [ih] Secret precedence schemes back then
>> To: internet-history at postel.org
>> Message-ID: <497F3391.2000702 at udel.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
>>
>> Mathias,
>>
>> Busted after all these years. In the bad old NSFnet days the interactive
>> customers were being crushed by other traffic, so I modifed the scheduling
>> algorithm to implement a classic precedence scheme using the IP header TOS
>> field. Then, I changed NTP to use the highest priority and telnet to use the
>> next highest. Steve Wolff and I agreed to do thes as an emergency measure
>> and to keep it a secret ftom the Cornell operators.
>> I never told anybody and I don't think Steve did either, so somebody else
>> figured it out. If you look closely at my SIGCOMM paper you can probably
>> figure it out, too.
>>
>> 23 years after the crime, it is past the statute of limitations.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de]
>>> Sent: 29 January 2009 00:05
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Of Interest: Congestion Management FAQ from Cox
>>>
>>> Ginger Paque schrieb:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This transparency is a positive step peripheral to the NN debate:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It goes right to the heart, actually. While this transparency is nice, and
>>> their approach to bandwidth management sounds very well-intended, this
>>> announcement also means that Cox will look into the traffic of each
>>> customer to determine which application is using the TCP stack ("deep
>>> packet inspection" is the technical term). You could consider this a
>>> breach of telecommunications privacy. At least it is a big step away from
>>> the classic bit-mover and best-effort internet model.
>>>
>>> Good read on this:
>>> The Rise and Fall of Invasive ISP Surveillance
>>> Paul Ohm, University of Colorado Law School
>>> U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-22
>>> University of Illinois Law Review, 2009
>>> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1261344>
>>>
>>> Ralf
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090130/2de0af77/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list