Re: [p2pi] Fwd: For those who think "User Fairness/Cost Fairness" isunacceptable...

This isn't a court of law, and it's not our mandate to determine who the 
good guys (or good practices) are and who's being bad. It's certainly 
not an established fact that an application-neutral per-user fairness 
regime is "disruptive to the intended use of the Internet" or any such 
thing; in fact, the evidence leads to quite a different conclusion.

Similarly, packet inspection (deep or shallow, if there is such a thing) 
without retention for the purpose of prioritizing is quite a different 
animal than packet inspection for the purpose of retaining personal 
information  to be used for commercial or other purposes.

Similarly, speculations about the viability of metered pricing are 
probably not productive, given that it's already the norm on most 
Internet access networks in the world. The Internet is, after all, a 
global phenomenon and not simply a slice of American life.

I'd prefer to focus the energies of this group in a more productive 
direction, namely to identify means of harmonizing the needs and 
requirements of groups of users on shared network links, given that 
"infinite bandwidth at no cost" is outside the solution space.

RB

Robb Topolski wrote:
> (Adding to my own message)
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Robb Topolski <robb@funchords.com 
> <mailto:robb@funchords.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Livingood, Jason
>     <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com
>     <mailto:Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>> wrote:
>
>
>             I was a bit thrown off by your RFC 1087 reference, "Ethics
>             and the Internet" from 1989.  Perhaps that RFC is somewhat
>             geared towards a non-commercial past, when as it says, the
>             Internet is a "national facility" used mostly by researchers. 
>
>     The reference is historical, relating to "/Recent events involving
>     the hosts on the Internet and
>     in similar network infrastructures underscore the need to
>     reiterate the professional responsibility every Internet user
>     bears to colleagues ..."
>     / 
>
>             Can you advise your specific technical areas of concern,
>             as it relates to this RFC (see below)?
>
>
>     They are these acts, which Comcast's current RST method and
>     proposed "Protocol Agnostic" method violate.
>      
>     /      (b) disrupts the intended use of the Internet,/
>
>     /      (c) wastes resources (people, capacity, computer) through such/
>     /          actions,/
>
>     /      (d) destroys the integrity of computer-based information,/
>
>     /      (e) compromises the privacy of users./
>
>
> All, please be clear that WRT to RFC 1087 I'm using it as an example 
> and expressing my criticisms at the methods being employed, not the 
> persons and companies themselves.  The effects of using Protocol 
> discrimination or Consumption discrimination are these four effects 
> above. 
>
> Comcast is here participating -- not here acting "unethically."  
> Unfortunately, the title of RFC 1087 is something like "Ethics and the 
> Internet."  Please do not interpret this fact as a criticism of 
> Comcast or its participation here.  Please do interpret my message as 
> a criticism of both the old and their new proposed method.
>
> Thank you to the individual who sent me a corrective message in 
> private.  It did look like a shot, and that wasn't what I was going for.
>
>
> -- 
> Robb Topolski (robb@funchords.com <mailto:robb@funchords.com>)
> Hillsboro, Oregon USA
> http://www.funchords.com/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2pi mailing list
> p2pi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
>   

-- 
Richard Bennett