Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] [Doh] New: draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients

[Bob Harold <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 6:34 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Paul, it might be worth asking whether you believe that isps should be
> selling eyeballs. If you think they should, then your argument makes sense.
> It’s the same argument isps give for charging me for service and then
> charging Netflix for access to me.
>
> If you don’t agree with this model, then your argument that whoever built
> the network has the right to dictate terms is inconsistent.
>

If you buy service from a network that subsidizes the price of your
connection by selling your data, that is your choice.   You could use a VPN
or buy a network service (even a dedicated line) for a higher price that
does not sell your data.  Their network, their rules, but you choose the
network.

-- 
Bob Harold



> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 15:26 Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> i had to think about this for quite a long time. i've trimmed the cc
>> headers.
>>
>> Christian Huitema wrote on 2019-03-12 20:39:
>> >
>> > On 3/12/2019 7:56 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >
>> > The mirror image of that statement is, "when did intermediaries get
>> > a mandate to filter content?"
>>
>> it was rarely a mandate, though various governments have made it one for
>> various intermediaries. let me answer a different question, when did
>> intermediaries gain the right or responsibility or both for filtering
>> content? because that answer is simple: when they started building and
>> operating it, investing in it, and either profiting or losing from it.
>>
>> their networks, their rules. which is only potentially unfair when they
>> are also monopolies, in which case their end systems and edge networks
>> have no alternatives. the law may want to recognize when a monopoly
>> exists and set some minimums and maximums on intermediary operator
>> rights and responsibilities. but that's not an architecture question.
>>
>> > ... The internet architecture assumes full connectivity. At some
>> > point, people deployed middle-boxes and filtered content because
>> > they could.
>>
>> as seems natural, since the internet architecture is neither viral nor
>> communist, and anyone who connects a network to that network-of-networks
>> called "the internet" has always treated all policy as local, since all
>> responsibility for its emissions and uptime was theirs and only theirs.
>>
>> > They did not exactly try to get a mandate, or obtain consensus that
>> > this was proper.
>>
>> no consensus was needed. if someone broke your rules, you stopped them
>> or disconnected them. that was true for the NSFnet AUP, and it's true of
>> every network's AUP today, and every corporate or family network's policy.
>>
>> > Technologies like DoH force the discussion in the open. Why do you
>> > think you can filter content? Who made you king?
>>
>> i think that's hyperbole. i am at best a prince, and only of the
>> territory i personally pay to build and connect, and only in the eyes of
>> people who use my network. anyone who dislikes my rules can search for
>> some other internet-connected network whose rules they like better. this
>> is not a dictatorship, but certainly is a coalition of the willing.
>>
>> --
>> P Vixie
>>
>