[Chapter-delegates] [from IP] FCC Order on Comcast - a good job

[Holly Raiche]

HI Franck (and everyone)

I generally try not to post to everyone, but I must comment the FCC  
judgments - all five of them.   To discuss what the FCC actually  
found, please do read all five - starting with the decision of the  
Chair.  A few things are very clear from the judgments.  The first is  
that the FCC absolutely has no problem with carriers and ISPs  
managing congestion on their networks - and if that means  
prioritising packets - so be it.  It was THE WAY that Comcast did it  
- and didn't tell its customers what they were doing, nor their  
competitors, that was the problem

For those who have read the ISOC statement on Net Neutrality - the  
FCC decision clearly does not support pure net neutrality - there can  
be discrimination between packets - as long as it is for legitimate  
purposes including congestion management and customers are told what  
is happening.

I too applaud their decision - they recognise both the need for an  
open and non-discriminatory access to the net - and that it be within  
sensible boundaries of managing congestion.

So read what I think are very sensible majority judgments (Tate is  
somewhere in the middle) and enjoy

Kind regards

Holly Raiche
Executive Director,
Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)
ed at isoc-au.org.au
Mob: 0412 688 544
Ph: (02) 9436 2149

The Internet is For Everyone

On 21/08/2008, at 7:20 AM, Franck Martin wrote:

> This seems to me the call for a Best Practice document?
>
> It would be interesting (?), if the chapters with help of ISOC  
> staff (?) were initiating such a draft to submit to IETF?
>
> May be someone, more familiar with IETF could give some pointers to  
> similar documents?
>
> Franck Martin
> ICT Specialist
> franck at sopac.org
> SOPAC, Fiji
> GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9  D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9  
> 1320
> "Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question" G.Bachelard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Gaines" <gene.gaines at gainesgroup.com>
> To: "ISOC Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> Cc: "David Farber" <dave at farber.net>
> Sent: Thursday, 21 August, 2008 5:42:30 AM GMT +12:00 Fiji
> Subject: [Chapter-delegates] [from IP] FCC Order on Comcast - a  
> good job
>
> Message (below) sent by David Reed to David Farber's IP list.
>
> The U.S. FCC has taken many missteps in recent years; I am
> very pleased to see this excellent FCC decision finding Comcast
> guilty of misusing Internet protocols to slow down P2P traffic.
>
> This puts the whole issue of integrity of fair use of the Internet
> where it should be -- Not in "Net Neutrality" but rather in terms
> of "Internet Neutrality as defined by Internet protocols".
>
> It is the IETF and its open, participative engineering protocol
> development process that should be defining use and operation
> of the Internet, not a committee of any political body.
>
> This brings home to me again the importance of the IETF and ISOC.
>
> Free flow of information is as important to me as the air I breathe.
>
> How could I live without it?
>
> Gene Gaines
> Sterling, Virginia USA
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed at reed.com>
> Date: August 20, 2008 12:09:08 PM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
> Subject: FCC Order on Comcast - a good job
>
> Dave - I just posted this on my blog, regarding the FCC opinion and  
> order about Comcast RST injection. Your readers might be interested.
>
> -David P. Reed
> ------------------------------
> ----
>
> Permalink: http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/?p=12
>
> FCC Order on Comcast - a good job <http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/?p=12>
>
> The FCC today issued its formal opinion and order in regard to  
> Comcast's degrading of P2P and other traffic using DPI and RST  
> injection <http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/Comments%20on%20FCC%20order% 
> 20FCC-08-183A1>. Of course, I've been very interested in this,  
> especially since I was asked by the Commission to testify as a  
> witness at the en banc hearing at Harvard Law School in February.
>
> After reading the order this morning, I felt like commending the  
> FCC - so I filed a formal comment with the FCC, and I posted it on  
> my site <http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/?page_id=10> as well. The  
> decision is a good decision for the Internet. In short here's why:
>
> The decision shows that the agency understands the importance of  
> the technological principles of the Internet's design.
>
> The Internet is a /world-wide system that does not belong to any  
> one operator/, whether providing access lines or backbone transport.
>
> The design of the Internet Protocols specifies clear limits on what  
> operators can and cannot do to Internet Protocol datagrams when  
> those operators are acting as part of the Internet.
>
> Not obeying those limits poses a serious risk to the continued  
> success of the world-wide Internet. Happily, the FCC recognized and  
> exposed Comcast's transgressions of those limits.
>
> Though Internet design is not a law, the Commission's order  
> respects the importance of that design, and rejects Comcast's  
> misbehavior and deception in applying technologies that go against  
> the principles of that design.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Chapter-delegates  
> mailing list Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org http:// 
> elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20080821/f405939f/attachment.htm>