[Cialug] OT: Deep packet inspection meets 'Net neutrality, CALEA

[Brandon Griffis]

On 7/28/07, Todd Walton <tdwalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/27/07, Brandon Griffis <brandongriffis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is always how it ends up when things are left to "the market".  The
> biggest businesses
> > take over and eliminate the competition and then charge monopoly prices.
>
> No kidding.  I used to love to go to Target and Kmart before Wal-Mart
> killed them.  And now look at the prices at Wal-Mart!


Your statement, though obviously sarcastic, is more true than you seem to
know.  Walmart is a great example of this.  Kmart went bankrupt and there
are few of them left.  Target is usually only in the slightly more populated
towns.  But where Walmart is the most vicious is when the town has
local/smaller stores.  Walmart comes in, undercuts everyone and takes a loss
at that store for 5-8 years.  Then when all the other businesses go backrupt
they jack up their prices and in many cases destroy the town.  Not to
mention the job loss and lack of full time insured positions.

Utilities on the other hand...  Because government has naturally
> limited rollout of cable and phone networks based on rights of way,
> regulatory fees, and public need (there's already one fine cable in
> that ground, we don't need another!), we have much better service
> there.  It's a *good* thing that government is protecting me from too
> much choice in this area.


Iowa is actually a great example of government doing a good job with
utilities.  The state having laid quite a lot of the fiber that is used.
Also I would say that the government breaking up the bell company did quite
a lot for moving tech forward.  I certainly like no longer having to "rent"
my corded telephone.  As I said at the beginning of my email.  Regulation
often doesn't work well.  But it's better than not on the whole.  There are
a ton of examples of bad/corrupt regulation.  The trick is finding the right
balance.

> It's the natural end result of capitalism, and it's what government is
> SUPPOSED to be
> > protecting us from.
>
> > However, QoS is a reality and a necessity.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The real answer is to regulate it to the extent that "types" of service
> can be prioritized, but not
> > one provider over another.
>
> So what type is Yahoo?  Is it a search engine or is it a news site or
> is it a portal?  Or do you mean protocols?  Is downloading ISOs by
> HTTP different than by FTP?  Is it okay for an ISP to downgrade
> BitTorrent traffic?  What if it's carrying a Linux ISO?


by "types" I mean similar functions.  I mean it as generally and as open to
interpretation as possible.  As I said at the end of the email it's really
hard, if not impossible, to write up the regulation/laws without creating
major problems/loopholes.

And now... here's the crucial step...  Must the answer you give to
> these questions be The One Answer for everyone?  What advantage is
> there to that?


Similar regs for similar businesses/providers.  The regs for backbone
providers obviously would be different than the regs for smaller "last mile"
ISP providers.

> So you want to prioritize voip?  Fine.  But both your packets and your
> competitors packets
> > have to be given the same priority.  Which would be a greater priority
> than let's say smtp or
> > http.
>
> I don't see what's wrong with the good old fashioned contract.


Contract between who?  And who's to say that a contract will be acceptable
to all sides?

-todd
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cialug.org/pipermail/cialug/attachments/20070728/50f9272b/attachment-0001.html