EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal
nanog at ics-il.net
Wed Mar 29 13:11:04 UTC 2017
I know most of the people in the thread have been doing this a long time, the others I just don't know anything about them.
FWIW: Glass has been running an ISP for 20 - 25 years, has given Congressional\FCC testimony, etc. He's not an industry slouch either, just with a different political standing.
Certainly independents need better marketing machines, but the past 10 - 15 years, they've been beaten down pretty badly with the general public flocking to the incumbents and the masochism that entails. As my ISP tries to grow, in the same conversation I've had a property manager complain about Comcast and then say they don't need me because they have Comcast. I know that's not a technical battle.
Heck, I've been trying to hire a sales\biz dev guy for the better part of two years. I never get anyone reasonable responding. One guy asked what B2B was. We need those anchor enterprise, government, MDU accounts in an area to justify the expense and low ROI of single family homes.
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net>
To: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 7:58:57 AM
Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal
I know Mr. Glass thinks of me as a not knowledgeable network professional, but I hope you know I’ve been doing “ISP stuff” for a couple decades. I know how to work the system. There really are not any other broadband providers in my area. Hell, LTE doesn’t even work well in my house, and I am less than a dozen miles from the center of Boston.
But more importantly, even if there were a second provider, how do you expect Joe & Mary User to find that provider if I cannot? (Not trying to be arrogant, just saying I am more experience in this field than the average consumer.)
Broadband competition in the US is a myth, at least for most people. At best, competition is the exception, not the rule. At worst, it’s a thinly veiled monopoly. Hell, they brag about it being a duopoly where they can, as if that’s a great thing. Comcast’s chairman brags that Time Warner & Comcast do not compete in any cities.
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 6:35 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> Are there really no others or are the ones that are there just marketing themselves poorly? Any nearby you could convince to expand?
> Over my WISP's coverage, I have at least 13 WISP competitors, 7 broadband wireline and nearly that many enterprise fiber. I admit that may be exceptional.
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> The Brothers WISP
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net>
> To: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:25:54 PM
> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal
> Thanks, I was a bit confused why you said it, which is apparently because I was confused. :-)
> I agree we need to do a better job educating users why this is important.
> And just so my opinion is clear, if there were a true market, I would not mind ISPs who did this (with proper notice). Unfortunately, over half of all households in the US have one or fewer choices for broadband providers. I am one of them. What do I do if my ISP wants to collect my data? VPN everything?
>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
>> It was more a plea to educate the list on why this matters vs. doom and gloom with a little more gloom and a little less Carmack. Instead I got more of the sky is falling.
>> Note that I don't intend to ever do this at my ISP, nor my IX.
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net <mailto:patrick at ianai.net>>
>> To: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org <mailto:nanog at nanog.org>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:12:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal
>> My guess is you do not.
>> Which is -precisely- why the users (proletariat?) need to find a way to stop you. Hence laws & regulations.
>> Later in this thread you said “we are done here”. Would that you were so lucky.
>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net <mailto:nanog at ics-il.net>> wrote:
>>> Why am I supposed to care?
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> The Brothers WISP
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk at gsp.org <mailto:rsk at gsp.org>>
>>> To: nanog at nanog.org <mailto:nanog at nanog.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4:45:25 PM
>>> Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:45:04PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote:
>>>> The claim oft presented by people favoring this customer abuse is that
>>>> the sold data is anonymous. But it's been well-established that very
>>>> simple data aggregation techniques can develop signatures that reveal
>>>> the identity of people in anonymized data.
>>> This needs to be repeated loudly and often at every possible opportunity.
>>> I've spent much of the past decade studying this issue and the most succinct
>>> way I can put it is that however good you (generic "you") think
>>> de-anonymization techniques are, you're wrong: they're way better than that.
>>> Billions, and I am not exaggerating even a little bit, have been spent
>>> on this problem, and they've been spent by smart people with essentially
>>> unlimited computational resources. And whaddaya know, they've succeeded.
>>> So if someone presents you a data corpus and says "this data is anonymized",
>>> the default response should be to mock them, because there is a very high
>>> probability they're either (a) lying or (b) wrong.
>>> Incidentally, I'm also a signatory of the EFF document, since of course
>>> with nearly 40 years in the field I'm a mere clueless newbie and despite
>>> ripping them a new one about once every other month, I'm clearly a tool
>>> of Google.
More information about the NANOG