[Chapter-delegates] Possible collaboration on events

[Zaid Ali]

I assume you mean open inter-networking :) I have read the paper on this and
I don't disagree with this on principle but my concern is how we communicate
and educate the public. At our local chapter level people are still using
the term net neutrality so are media, bloggers et al. How do we educate them
about open inter-networking when everyone is knee deep still relating to net
neutrality. My opinion is that this whole process is costly at both the
national and US chapter level.

It seems the public and ISOC in this case are addressing the same issue but
in an opinion tug of war, open inter-networking is a valid argument but we
don't have enough strength on our side of the rope and I question is we ever
will. I have talked to many lawyers in the last few days since this ruling
and they all use the term net neutrality, ask any senator and they will use
the term net neutrality.

As far as Comcast Vs FCC the battle is far from over, using the term
"Network Management" in this case will result in nothing but court battles
over what the term "Network Management" means and how this court decision
cannot be used to block application X or Y because some ISP is hampering
either Internet development or the next Youtube.

Zaid 


On 4/10/10 11:39 AM, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

> I think the public is already confused, and that open networking is
> actually a clearer principle. Strange as it may seem I welcome the the
> FCC decision as it actually serves to clarify the situation., a
> re-opens the structural separation discussion.
> 
> Comcast's torrent reset spoofing was specifically necessitated by
> shortcomings in DOCSIS that are addressed in version 3.0. What was
> egregious that they did it clandestinely. To their credit they rapidly
> opened up:
> http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/Attachment_B_Future_Practices.pdf
> 
> The court found the FCC's regulation of such network management is
> beyond it's currently mandated purview.
> 
> When it comes to an ISP giving preference to one proprietary service
> over another, the core of Network Neutrality, this is an
> anti-competitive action that is arguably a matter for the FTC rather
> than FCC.
> 
> What would seem necessary is a clear definition of 'Internet Service'.
> 
> I will leave it to others to address federal mandates on IPv6 take up
> but I would imagine such would be wholely antithetical to the
> 'internet model'.
> 
> j
> 
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid at sfbayisoc.org> wrote:
>> I think we are confusing the public, should we be spending valuable
>> resources, money on going out there to redefine the term Net Neutrality?
>> 
>> As for Comcast vs FCC, FCC had a terrible legal team here, the result is
>> killing ants with DDT which means now Comcast and other providers to follow
>> can use this decision to hamper progress under the blanket of "network
>> management practice". This blow to the FCC is so great that I think we have
>> no chance on getting the US governments support in the future for IPv6. I
>> see that there will be a need in a few years to involve the US government to
>> push providers to to IPv6 and the FCC should be in a position to regulate
>> something like this, just as they did with cutting off analog TV. The
>> current administration realizes that Internet is no different to the
>> national telephone system or television.
>> 
>> One of the key arguments used in Comcast Vs FCC by Comcast was "Preserving
>> Bandwidth". Can't providers now use this to hamper IPv6 progress? Putting an
>> IP address on a device is Network Management, the IPv6 packet is larger and
>> I am sure you can tie all this to excessive bandwidth usage. Imagine a
>> company doing a video application on IPv6 only. Vendors and providers are
>> already complaining that they can't keep up with upgrading all their
>> hardware to IPv6 compatibility, do we now have another loophole?
>> 
>> Zaid
>>