6 ms·
Those, too. They are problems to be dealt with at other layers of the OSI stack, the ones above "Transport."
by CamperBob 16y ago
Those, too. They are problems to be dealt with at other layers of the OSI stack, the ones above "Transport."
- moultano 16y agoAre you saying that if some ISP's network is grinding to a halt under the weight of a DOS attack or a worm, they should be legally prohibited from doing anything about it? Unless we're using different terminology, Only the endpoints would be allowed to do anything about this under your proposal.
- CamperBob 16y agoFor deliberate DOS attacks, sure... I think the law could make exceptions for dealing with deliberate vandalism. But worms and the like are not the ISP's problem, unless they harm the network itself and affect users who wouldn't otherwise be vulnerable to them.
- jerf 16y agoHello camel nose! Once you agree that total equality isn't actually possibly, we are now arguing about exactly which non-neutral policy to apply. Very similar to the anecdotal story about Winston Churchill that ends with "Now we are haggling about the price."
- CamperBob 16y ago(Shrug) If I vandalize a road sign, the highway department has the right to close the lane, replace the sign, and prosecute me for the act. They do not, however, get to sell the highway to a conglomerate that also owns a trucking company who will be charged lower tolls for driving on it. That's all 'net neutrality' means, or should mean.
- moultano 16y agoThat seems pretty similar to the language this proposal uses: A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from-- (1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice; (2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and (3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service
- CamperBob 16y agoI have a problem with the "lawful" part, though -- it's not the business of the network operator to judge lawfulness.
- moultano 16y agoThen what criteria would you use that includes everything reasonable, but excludes botnets, malware, dos attacks and the like?
- tonfa 16y agoThe term usually used is "harmful content" (in the sense it hinders the network to function properly).
- CamperBob 16y agoIf it harms users other than the ones who left their systems unprotected, then it would be a good candidate for intervention. Neutrality shouldn't be a suicide pact for the ISP, but a set of operating guidelines that cover situations short of outright abuse and vandalism.
- flatulent1 16y agoVoIP is content. SMTP/POP/HTML email is content. Do you want your ISP to monitor those to decide which are okay? Discriminating against torrent traffic can be like racial profiling. A protocol is not an intent. If you do want profiling, perhaps consumers running Windows should pay a higher fees and be given less bandwidth since those customers have higher support costs and have the machines most used for DDOS attacks, sending spam/scam and other foul behavior. Windows machines harm the network. If a customer wishes to configure his router to share the bandwidth he's paid for, that's not theft of service. (Also read the F.C.C. notices included with U.S. routers - they don't own spectrum)