<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Re. Peter's item on defining net neutrality:<br>
<br>
A reasonable definition is:<br>
a) non-discrimination by content (e.g. the ownership of, or
meaning conveyed by, a given quantity of information: such as the
meaning of spoken or written words, the identity of an author, the
subject-matter of a video, the genre of music), <br>
b) while maintaining QOS (quality of service) standards
appropriate to type or category of communication. <br>
<br>
Thus, all "conversation" categories (text chats, phone calls,
videophone conferences) should be treated the same way (high QOS,
low latency), regardless of who is speaking and what they are
saying. All "file transfer" categories (email, uploads/downloads
including music and video) should be treated the same way (greater
latency or delay is allowed) regardless of ownership, authorship,
meaning, opinion expressed, etc.<br>
<br>
Originally, carriers were legally forbidden to have any financial
interest in "content." Thus the telephone company could not give
you a better or worse connection depending on whether they did or
didn't like you or the words you said in conversations. These
arrangements were worked out during a period of time in American
history when progressive and equalitarian values governed public
policy. This is what Peter is referring to by the term "common
carrier laws." If you build a network along the public right-of-way
(such as wires along roads, or their wireless equivalent) you are
obligated to treat all members of the public equally, and charge
them the same rates for the same services. <br>
<br>
The development of the internet coincided with a period when
laissez-faire and social darwinist values governed public policy.
Thus the carriers were "deregulated" and allowed to have direct
financial ownership over "content." It logically followed that
carriers would seek to privilege the content they owned, over the
content they did not own. For example Comcast has a primary stake
in cable TV, and thus an interest in giving its own programs better
connections than "competing" video from other sources it does not
own.<br>
<br>
As long as carriers are allowed to have ownership stake in content,
they will behave that way. This is the key "conflict of interest"
as Peter describes it, and the origin of the entire problem of
network neutrality. And, once carriers are entitled to meddle in
content, they will use that power to its full extent and begin to
engage in subtle manipulation of the public (keyword "nudge"), and
overt censorship, as we have seen. <br>
<br>
The only long-term solution that will work "naturally" (as distinct
from using a "Rube Goldberg contraption" of overly-complex indirect
regulation that can be corrupted), is to once again split carriers
from content, such that neither can have ownership over the other.
This is hardly as difficult as it may seem, since we already did
something similar in the 1980s by breaking up the Bell System
(AT&T) under competitive pressure.<br>
<br>
There's also a deeper problem inherent in the architecture of
technology itself, about which more if anyone's interested to hear
it (and this also gets at what Peter was referring to about
"bundles"). <br>
<br>
-G<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13-11-25-Mon 6:04 PM, Pete Forsyth
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGWts0F7GD5e6unhBZx2tGW1Lpg1B++qWtsTVbxLk0tCBfLnNg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">To delve a little into specifics:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The DSL speeds I typically get (fairly close to Vicky
geographically, so likely similar) are 3 Mbps download, 1Mbps
upload. (An easy way to check your speeds is <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/" target="_blank">http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/</a>
-- be sure to shut down other computers/devices on your
network to get an accurate reading.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For day-to-day use this is usually fine, but it's pretty
frequent that I encounter problems. I've had Sonic since July,
and have been able to manage; but since Internet is a vital
part of my work, and I work from home, I do unfortunately feel
the temptation to "sell my soul to Comcast."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The upload speed is the bigger problem. When I am uploading
something big, typically a video or collection of photos,
other activities can grind to a halt. Uploading a 500MB video
at these speeds can take over an hour, so this is significant.
Contrary to common belief, if you max out your upstream
bandwidth, your downstream bandwidth is maxed out as well. I
share my connection with a roommate. Higher bandwidth
activities include Skype and various other
videoconferencing/screen sharing applications (which require
both upload and download bandwidth); and streaming stuff video
(Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo) and music (Amazon, Pandora, iTunes).
Much of the streaming is done on a Roku.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>One thing I have tried is replacing my router with one that
has Quality of Service (QoS) functionality -- a Belkin N750.
Unfortunately, when I received it I found that it does not
permit specific settings by MAC address -- I had intended to
just throttle the upload speed for the computer I usually use
for uploads -- but instead has a simple "on/off" checkbox for
QoS, so I guess it's just prioritizing stuff according to
somebody's (obscure) idea of what traffic should be
prioritized. In the simple tests I have run, though, things do
seem dramatically improved: a Skype call during an upload
connected quickly and sounded fine.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In troubleshooting this stuff, I've found Sonic tech
support very happy to look at my usage patterns, in my case
confirming my hunch that uploads are the thing that maxes out
my connection, but that I'd never maxed out the download when
an upload wasn't in progress. I strongly recommend asking tech
support about this before making any big decisions -- it's
possible that more intelligent routing, or just saving your
big uploads for overnight, might solve your problem.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A friend also suggested installing a "whole home DSL
filter" -- it installs where the phone line terminates
*outside* your house, and then sends *two* lines into the
house -- one for DSL, and another for voice. That way you
don't need the little DSL filters on every phone. I've heard
mixed reviews, and suspect these only make a difference where
there is lots of internal wiring in the house -- and there's
not in my place, so I haven't bothered with this.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sonic offers a feature -- I can't remember the name, and
consequently can't find the web page -- where you change your
connection to drop your downstream speed and increase your
upstream speed. So in my case, maybe I'd get something like
2Mbps in each direction (likely a little less, actually). This
is a free switch, but obviously involves a significant
sacrifice. It's probably worth trying before making a switch.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you're willing to spend more each month -- like double
-- Sonic does offer a service that bundles two ADSL lines. But
that's *really* voting with your dollars ;) It also might be
possible/interesting, if you have friendly neighbors, to
explore bundling your Internet service with theirs, so you
both share both connections. This would involve some fancy
router setup, but I think is possible. Or, if you have to go
with Comcast, you'll probably have way more bandwidth than you
need -- so consider sharing it with a neighbor and at least
not sending *two* households' worth of business their way!
Or…maybe the occasional high-bandwidth need can be addressed
by temporarily tethering your cell phone for any other stuff
you have to do at the same time…?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>OK, on to something a little more philosophical. (Apologies
for the jargonese that follows, I can explain in more detail
if people want me to.) Like others on this list, I think, I
have four (interrelated) major complaints about Comcast. Some
are specific to Comcast, some to cable carriers, and others
apply to lots of big Internet carriers:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>An FCC ruling that I consider a travesty, that exempted
them from the "common carrier" laws even though they lease
public rights-of-way to run their cables -- effectively
establishing a monopoly in many areas on high speed
Internet (There's a pretty good documentary here: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://barbershoppunk.com">http://barbershoppunk.com</a>
)</li>
<li>Their bundles and customer service that push you to sign
up for stuff you might not want (like TV service) and
enter into 2-year contracts.<br>
</li>
<li>Their bad record on sharing customers' info with
goverment entities (compare Comcast and Sonic here: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013">https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013</a>
)</li>
<li>Their abysmal record on net neutrality (see <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://barbershoppunk.com">barbershoppunk.com</a>
)</li>
</ul>
<div>I want to talk about the last one for a sec, and am
really interested in what others think about this. It seems
to me that the fundamental challenges in defining "net
neutrality" has been a bigger problem than I previously
thought. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it would
have been better to acknowledge upfront that network
management is a sophisticated and complex task, rather than
telling the seemingly simpler story that the Internet,
absent the meddling of service providers, is some kind of
level playing field. Networks have always been managed to
prioritize one kind of traffic over another; and we all
benefit from intelligent and benevolent decisions being made
in network design.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It seems to me that the simpler and more accurate way to
frame the issue is around the "transparent and ethical
management of conflicts of interest around network management
decisions." It seems to me that the whole net neutrality issue
has been driven by concern around conflicts of interest, but
that the *term* conflict of interest is almost entirely absent
from the rhetoric.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Curious what others think on this last point?</div>
<div>Pete</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Vicky
Knox <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vknoxsironi@gmail.com" target="_blank">vknoxsironi@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">I couldn't agree with you more, G. We are
between a rock and a hard place. <br>
</div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2013/11/24 GtwoG PublicOhOne
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net"
target="_blank">g2g-public01@att.net</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
How slow is it? And "ultra-slow" for what
purposes?<br>
<br>
The corporate data combine wants to turn the
internet into a new form of TV that watches
everything we do, feeds us irresistible
advertising, sells us "experiences," and keeps
us busy playing games while their cronies
harvest our labor and pillage the planet.
_That_, not producing & sharing personal and
community content, is largely what's behind the
"need" for speed. <br>
<br>
Along the way, the corporate data combine also
has a direct stake in making us impatient, to
the point where waiting a few minutes for a
download or upload becomes intolerable.
Impatience plus the endemic narcissism of being
surrounded by our "selves" in their digital
representations of "personalization" and media
bubbles, are key bricks in the wall.<br>
<br>
Right now the primary choices are LMI/Sonic over
copper, AT&T DSL over copper, AT&T over
fiber, and Comcast via coaxial cable. There are
a few other options such as Telepacific and
various wireless services, most of them intended
for business users.<br>
<br>
A dollar spent is a vote cast. And a "fast"
connection without network neutrality, has a
speed of zero for censored content.<br>
<br>
-G<br>
<br>
<br>
=====
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-11-23-Sat 1:07 PM, Vicky Knox
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>PEOPLE.<br>
<br>
</div>
Though I would like to support their
local business, I am sick of LMI's
ultra slow Sonic connection! :[ And I
don't want to sell my soul to Comcast.
Webpass has mixed reviews. Etc., etc.
Where do I go? help!!!!! I just want
to dust off poor old neglected
Transmission and watch some
thought-provoking films! D:<br>
<br>
</div>
This all said, I'd like to get an
initial temperature check on the idea of
Sudo Room making official
recommendations for IT services and
publishing those recommendations on our
websites as a public service. Thoughts?
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<pre>_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a>
</pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>