[194215] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Tue Mar 28 08:34:40 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 07:33:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <3212EB8D-2944-486B-A681-B78066BD9F3E@ianai.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Many organizations clamor the FCC for regulation because they hate somethin=
g about the top 10, 20, etc. ISPs. There is certainly something to hate abo=
ut them, but almost every time, the baby gets thrown out with the bath wate=
r and little ISPs are harmed along the way. Extremes on both sides are what=
get attention, meanwhile nothing constructive for little ISPs gets done. T=
he policy community forgets them.=20
That same sort of forget about the little guys happens in technical discuss=
ions in NANOG as well. Most ISPs and most web hosts have less than 1G of up=
stream and likely from a single provider. The technical community forgets t=
hem.=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
The Brothers WISP=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>=20
To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 6:22:27 PM=20
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineer=
s opposed to FCC privacy repeal=20
I am somehow please that Mr. Glass does not find me a =E2=80=9Cknowledgeabl=
e network professional=E2=80=9D. It feels like a badge of honor. Any other =
=E2=80=9Cnot=E2=80=9D knowledgeable network professionals want to come forw=
ard and accept this badge?=20
Personally, I find the FCC=E2=80=99s current rules to be sub-optimal. But s=
aying a gov=E2=80=99t regulation is sub-optimal is like saying water is wet=
. The question is not whether the regulation could be improved. It is wheth=
er the proposed changes are an improvement.=20
To be 10000% clear: I prefer the current privacy regime over the new one be=
ing proposed.=20
Oh, and I do not believe the EFF is just a shill for Google. But then, I=E2=
=80=99m just a not knowledgeable network professional, so what do I know?=
=20
--=20
TTFN,=20
patrick=20
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:=20
>=20
> All:=20
>=20
> It's worth noting that most of EFF's list consists of individuals and/or =
politically connected organizations, not actual ISPs. This is for good reas=
on. EFF was founded with the intention of creating a civil rights organizat=
ion but has morphed into a captive corporate lobbying shop for Google, to w=
hich several of its board members have close financial ties. EFF opposes th=
e interests of hard working ISPs and routinely denigrates them and attempts=
to foster promotes hatred of them. It also promotes and lobbies for regula=
tions which advantage Google and disadvantage ISPs -- including the so-call=
ed "broadband privacy" regulations, which heavily burden ISPs while exempti=
ng Google from all oversight.=20
>=20
> No knowledgeable network professional or ISP would support the current FC=
C rules. Both they AND the FCC's illegal Title II classification of ISPs mu=
st be rolled back, restoring the FTC's ability to apply uniform and apoliti=
cal privacy standards to all of the players in the Internet ecosystem. The =
first step is to support S.J. Res 34/H.J. Res 86, the Congressional resolut=
ion which would revoke the current FCC regulations that were written and pa=
id for by Google and its lobbyists. So, DO contact your legislators... but =
do so in support of the resolutions that will repeal the regulations. It is=
vital to the future of the Internet.=20
>=20
> --Brett Glass, Owner and Founder, LARIAT.NET=20
>=20
> At 05:05 PM 3/26/2017, Peter Eckersley wrote:=20
>=20
>> Dear network operators,=20
>>=20
>> I'm sure this is a controversial topic in the NANOG community, but EFF a=
nd a=20
>> number of ISPs and networking companies are writing to Congress opposing=
the=20
>> repeal of the FCC's broadband privacy rules, which require explicit opt-=
in=20
>> consent before ISPs use or sell sensitive, non-anonymized data (includin=
g=20
>> non-anonymized locations and browsing histories).=20
>>=20
>> If you or your employer would like to sign on to such a letter, please r=
eply=20
>> off-list by midday Monday with your name, and a one-sentence description=
of=20
>> your affiliation and/or major career accomplishments.=20
