New Network Neutrality Squad — Users Protecting the Net

Lauren Weinstein writes in to announce the new "Network Neutrality Squad" — NNSquad. Joining PFIR Co-Founders Peter G. Neumann and Weinstein in this announcement are Vinton G. Cerf, Keith Dawson (Slashdot.org), David J. Farber (Carnegie Mellon University), Bob Frankston, Phil Karn (Qualcomm), David P. Reed, Paul Saffo, and Bruce Schneier (BT Counterpane). The Network Neutrality Squad ("NNSquad") is an open-membership, open-source effort, enlisting the Internet's users to help keep the Internet's operations fair and unhindered from unreasonable restrictions. The project's focus includes detection, analysis, and incident reporting of any anticompetitive, discriminatory, or other restrictive actions on the part of Internet service Providers (ISPs) or affiliated entities, such as the blocking or disruptive manipulation of applications, protocols, transmissions, or bandwidth; or other similar behaviors not specifically requested by their customers.

Great idea...

[Facetious]

...awful name. I can't help but think of Geek Squad, and that doesn't make me happy.

By Our Powers Combined...

[Pantero Blanco]

They certainly have some big names on the list. I hope that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and they're more effective at getting politicians to listen than they were when standing apart.

Re:Network Neutrality != good

[plasmacutter]

what BS rhetoric.

allow me to bring you back down to reality from your rabid right wing frothing.

The "open market" as you so quaintly call these broadband monopolies is failing us. They are deliberately censoring websites, blocking protocols, forging packets, and illegally giving data on our internet use to the US government.

The only thing left they haven't done is implement the great firewall of china, something even the bush administration would not get away with.

So, in short, they are already as bad as the government could ever be with the internet. Regulation can only make it better

Re:Network Neutrality != good

[Dorkmaster Flek]

I could be wrong, but it sounds more like they're looking for technical documentation and solutions to the issues rather than lobbying politicians for new laws. Also, do you really think that we even have "open market operations"? ISPs in North America have government regulated monopolies and it's killing our ability to keep pace with the rest of the world in connection speed and penetration to the majority of the population. I agree the solution is not more government regulation, but to kill these geographical monopolies.

Re:Network Neutrality != good

[kebes]

it really means government regulation

I agree that the government should keep its regulating to a minimum. The free market can often find optimal solutions to a variety of problems. However, there are two important things to keep in mind with regard to communication infrastructure: (1) It is already regulated; (2) It involves numerous layers of monopoly, hence it will never be a pure free market.

One of the important things to remember is that communication infrastructure requires using a limited public resource (e.g. burying cables on public property or even easements on private property, or using the limited bandwidth of wireless spectra ...). So no matter what, some kind of regulation is required. Moreover, some kind of government monopoly grant will be required (it is ludicrous to have hundreds of companies lay independent cable infrastructures, or compete for bands by building bigger and bigger transmitters).

So, given that government involvement (and moreover, the creation of various forms of monopoly) is inevitable, the question cannot be "do we want the government involved?" but rather "what do we want government involvement to be?"

The incumbent communication companies are, basically, abusing the monopoly status that was granted to them. That monopoly status was granted with an implied (and only occasionally codified) ethos: namely that this would create widespread access to the resource for the citizenry. Things like prioritizing traffic and double-charging people for access are explicitly contrary to the intention with which the monopolies were granted. Hence, it is totally reasonable to ask that government amend the agreement with these companies, so that they actually deliver the service they were supposed to deliver.

Put otherwise: why should government keep giving monopolies to companies that are not acting in ways that benefit the citizens?

"Layer 3" might be better

[Burz]

...or something that evokes the Internet Protocol.

People need to be reminded of what the ISP's role is: The offer Layer 3 service in the form of IP. Muck around with the protocols above that and you've not only stepped outside the bounds of an ISP, but are guilty of false advertising and data falsification.

Defence of Free Thought

[spleen_blender]

I wonder if the big telecoms realize how badly they will be entrenched in cyber-guerrilla warfare with people like you and me if they somehow pull off grasping control of the net. It would be nice and a hell of a lot of fun to have a fully morally justifiable reason to engage in offensive action against the people trying to control information. I just imagine a Thermopylae style engagement between the two sides, and it sends shivers down my spine when I think about what we are actually trying to defend.

Re:That's not Net Neutrality

[darjen]

So if it's not under a contract, they should be able to set the terms of a new contract if their customers voluntarily agree with it, right? Your argument, though perhaps valid under the current circumstance, assumes that public money was already invested, and their business wouldn't exist without it. That may some merit, but of course I am against using taxpayer money for any telecommunications purpose, including infrastructure. The problem here is that the initial use of public dollars has led us into a downward spiral of regulation. That makes it harder and harder to get out of it as we go on. So the proper solution in my mind would be to allow private entities to build up their own networks, with their own money, wherever they can get customers. In order to make it equal and ethical for everyone, tax money should be completely taken out of the equation in all circumstances.