is this true or... ?
batz
batsy at vapour.net
Fri Mar 28 15:58:27 UTC 2003
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
:Now, given the anti-NAT and anti-VPN tendencies of some
:broadband ISPs, I'm not necessarily thrilled, but it's not quite the
:same as was originally suggested.
Selling bandwidth is like selling water in that it isn't terribly
profitable unless you can get the user to lease the pipes, pay
per use, and make sure they aren't recycling it in any way.
It's a loser as a disposable commodity, but the ultimate service
if you can control it.
I suspect the bill may also leverage the security angle from an
anti-anonymity stance. Bizzare things are justified in the name
of security these days, and enshrining a cable providers right
to ensure it's customers aren't sharing bandwidth may seem
irrelevant, until that bandwidth is shared with "terrorists".
Using proxies for the purposes of surfing anonymously, setting
up VPN's or P2P networks which specifically dilute an individual
users custodianship of data, and otherwise undermining the stateful
transaction model of communication that telcos, law enforcement
and the economy exploits, are all threatened by the intent of
this bill.
The intent is to legally enshrine distribution channels as a
relationship between consumer and supllier, and to squelch the
fuzzy Red notions of community and network that have become so
prevalent lately.
Statelessness is an anathema to control, and we can expect more
pressure on the IETF and the IEEE to ensure that some peoples
political notions of economy are respected in protocol designs,
despite their lack of technical merit.
This bill will probably die on the operating table, but it won't
be the last we'll see of this broader trend.
Cheers,
--
batz
More information about the NANOG
mailing list