[194216] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Mar 28 09:56:10 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:56:04 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1577761502.4254.1490704396224.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Having worked networks with massive bandwidth, networks with a single T1 =
(don=E2=80=99t ask, just Google what a T1 is, er, was), and now being =
somewhere in the middle, I agree that the large guys sometimes forget =
the little guys exist. However, I think the change in privacy being =
proposed hurts -all- users, and disproportionately helps the large guys.
A tiny ISP with < 1 Gbps upstream does not have enough user data to sell =
or otherwise =E2=80=9Cmonetize=E2=80=9D, while the top 5-10 ISPs have a =
ready and willing market for their users=E2=80=99 data.
Which is why this is so strange. Mr. Glass=E2=80=99 ISP isn=E2=80=99t =
even a nat on the ass of national broadband ISPs. Not an indictment, =
like I said, I=E2=80=99ve run tiny networks myself. However, this change =
does not help ISPs in his position. Yet he is claiming the EFF is =
fighting for the big guy by opposing this change.
Color me confused. But then again, I am a not knowledgeable network =
professional, so I am probably just confused.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>=20
> Many organizations clamor the FCC for regulation because they hate =
something about the top 10, 20, etc. ISPs. There is certainly something =
to hate about them, but almost every time, the baby gets thrown out with =
the bath water and little ISPs are harmed along the way. Extremes on =
both sides are what get attention, meanwhile nothing constructive for =
little ISPs gets done. The policy community forgets them.=20
>=20
> That same sort of forget about the little guys happens in technical =
discussions in NANOG as well. Most ISPs and most web hosts have less =
than 1G of upstream and likely from a single provider. The technical =
community forgets them.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
>=20
> Midwest Internet Exchange=20
>=20
> The Brothers WISP=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>=20
> 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 =
engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal=20
>=20
> I am somehow please that Mr. Glass does not find me a =E2=80=9Cknowledge=
able 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 forward and accept this badge?=20
>=20
> Personally, I find the FCC=E2=80=99s current rules to be sub-optimal. =
But saying 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 whether the proposed changes are an improvement.=20
>=20
> To be 10000% clear: I prefer the current privacy regime over the new =
one being proposed.=20
>=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
> --=20
> TTFN,=20
> patrick=20
>=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 reason. EFF was founded with the intention of creating a civil =
rights organization but has morphed into a captive corporate lobbying =
shop for Google, to which several of its board members have close =
financial ties. EFF opposes the interests of hard working ISPs and =
routinely denigrates them and attempts to foster promotes hatred of =
them. It also promotes and lobbies for regulations which advantage =
Google and disadvantage ISPs -- including the so-called "broadband =
privacy" regulations, which heavily burden ISPs while exempting Google =
from all oversight.=20
>>=20
>> No knowledgeable network professional or ISP would support the =
current FCC rules. Both they AND the FCC's illegal Title II =
classification of ISPs must be rolled back, restoring the FTC's ability =
to apply uniform and apolitical 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 resolution which would revoke the current FCC =
regulations that were written and paid 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 and 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 =
(including=20
>>> non-anonymized locations and browsing histories).=20
>>>=20
>>> If you or your employer would like to sign on to such a letter, =
please reply=20
>>> off-list by midday Monday with your name, and a one-sentence =
description of=20
>>> your affiliation and/or major career accomplishments.=20
>=20
