[194250] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Mar 29 08:59:01 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <924720740.5345.1490783749164.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:58:57 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Mike:
I know Mr. Glass thinks of me as a not knowledgeable network =
professional, but I hope you know I=E2=80=99ve been doing =E2=80=9CISP =
stuff=E2=80=9D for a couple decades. I know how to work the system. =
There really are not any other broadband providers in my area. Hell, LTE =
doesn=E2=80=99t even work well in my house, and I am less than a dozen =
miles from the center of Boston.
But more importantly, even if there were a second provider, how do you =
expect Joe & Mary User to find that provider if I cannot? (Not trying to =
be arrogant, just saying I am more experience in this field than the =
average consumer.)
Broadband competition in the US is a myth, at least for most people. At =
best, competition is the exception, not the rule. At worst, it=E2=80=99s =
a thinly veiled monopoly. Hell, they brag about it being a duopoly where =
they can, as if that=E2=80=99s a great thing. Comcast=E2=80=99s chairman =
brags that Time Warner & Comcast do not compete in any cities.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 6:35 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>=20
> Are there really no others or are the ones that are there just =
marketing themselves poorly? Any nearby you could convince to expand?=20
>=20
> Over my WISP's coverage, I have at least 13 WISP competitors, 7 =
broadband wireline and nearly that many enterprise fiber. I admit that =
may be exceptional.=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: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:25:54 PM=20
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and =
engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal=20
>=20
> Thanks, I was a bit confused why you said it, which is apparently =
because I was confused. :-)=20
>=20
> I agree we need to do a better job educating users why this is =
important.=20
>=20
> And just so my opinion is clear, if there were a true market, I would =
not mind ISPs who did this (with proper notice). Unfortunately, over =
half of all households in the US have one or fewer choices for broadband =
providers. I am one of them. What do I do if my ISP wants to collect my =
data? VPN everything?=20
>=20
> --=20
> TTFN,=20
> patrick=20
>=20
>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:=20=
>>=20
>> It was more a plea to educate the list on why this matters vs. doom =
and gloom with a little more gloom and a little less Carmack. Instead I =
got more of the sky is falling.=20
>>=20
>> Note that I don't intend to ever do this at my ISP, nor my IX.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> -----=20
>> Mike Hammett=20
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>=20
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> =
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> =
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> =
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>=20
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>=20
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> =
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> =
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>=20
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>=20
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> =
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>=20
>> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net =
<mailto:patrick@ianai.net>>=20
>> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>=20
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:12:15 PM=20
>> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and =
engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal=20
>>=20
>> Mike:=20
>>=20
>> My guess is you do not.=20
>>=20
>> Which is -precisely- why the users (proletariat?) need to find a way =
to stop you. Hence laws & regulations.=20
>>=20
>> Later in this thread you said =E2=80=9Cwe are done here=E2=80=9D. =
Would that you were so lucky.=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> TTFN,=20
>> patrick=20
>>=20
>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net =
<mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> wrote:=20
>>>=20
>>> Why am I supposed to care?=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
>>>=20
>>> From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk@gsp.org <mailto:rsk@gsp.org>>=20
>>> To: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>=20
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4:45:25 PM=20
>>> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and =
engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal=20
>>>=20
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:45:04PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote:=20
>>>> The claim oft presented by people favoring this customer abuse is =
that=20
>>>> the sold data is anonymous. But it's been well-established that =
very=20
>>>> simple data aggregation techniques can develop signatures that =
reveal=20
>>>> the identity of people in anonymized data.=20
>>>=20
>>> This needs to be repeated loudly and often at every possible =
opportunity.=20
>>> I've spent much of the past decade studying this issue and the most =
succinct=20
>>> way I can put it is that however good you (generic "you") think=20
>>> de-anonymization techniques are, you're wrong: they're way better =
than that.=20
>>> Billions, and I am not exaggerating even a little bit, have been =
spent=20
>>> on this problem, and they've been spent by smart people with =
essentially=20
>>> unlimited computational resources. And whaddaya know, they've =
succeeded.=20
>>>=20
>>> So if someone presents you a data corpus and says "this data is =
anonymized",=20
>>> the default response should be to mock them, because there is a very =
high=20
>>> probability they're either (a) lying or (b) wrong.=20
>>>=20
>>> Incidentally, I'm also a signatory of the EFF document, since of =
course=20
>>> with nearly 40 years in the field I'm a mere clueless newbie and =
despite=20
>>> ripping them a new one about once every other month, I'm clearly a =
tool=20
>>> of Google.=20
>>>=20
>>> ---rsk=20
>=20
