is this true or... ?

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