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

Thu Aug 21 04:08:44 PDT 2008

For me the bare minimum, is to disclose. In the pure spirit of liberalism, the market will adapt, and keep what the people want. In a more socialist way, the government may need to intervene when there is no competition, or a balanced market. 

For balanced market, I mean, this is what we suffer a bit here, we have the government and the industry, very little user representation. We hope with the Pacific Islands Chapter we improve the user representation. 

However some tips (BCP) on how to handle traffic, could be interesting, especially for smaller ISPs who can ill afford the research of what works. I try to point them on some Security BCP (38 mainly), which is always a good start 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche at internode.on.net> 
To: "Franck Martin" <franck at sopac.org> 
Cc: "Gene Gaines" <gene.gaines at gainesgroup.com>, "David Farber" <dave at farber.net>, "ISOC Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> 
Sent: Thursday, 21 August, 2008 10:52:27 PM GMT +12:00 Fiji 
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] [from IP] FCC Order on Comcast - a good job 

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/20080821/6dcabad5/attachment.htm>