Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Delightfully dyspeptic?
I've been called a lot of things, but this one is, uh, hard to stomach(?)
Ray Gifford wrote in the Progress and Freedom Foundation blog (Aug 8 -- how I miss this?):
Gifford and I are in violent agreement on this:
Ray Gifford wrote in the Progress and Freedom Foundation blog (Aug 8 -- how I miss this?):
Chairman Martin is getting some over-the-top negative reviews on his DSL order and its supposed hedging on the 'net neutrality' principles. "Open Internet" advocates like Susan Crawford, the delightfully dyspeptic David S. Isenberg and Joho the blog have a cautiously pessimistic take on the 'net neutrality' principles the Chairman announced.At least I'm in good company.
Gifford and I are in violent agreement on this:
general [network neutrality] principles without actual application of those principles to a concrete situation are of little use.and this:
Before we invite any regulator into specifying what broadband providers can offer to their customers, we had better be very sure before-the-fact of the harm we are trying to prevent.But Gifford says
To date, we have little evidence of such harm, and the specific instances of port-blocking have been remedied.This is hogwash. Port 25 blocking is rampant, and often coupled with crippled SMTP services from the originating ISP. Other ports are blocked as well, and some providers, e.g., Clearwire, which Gifford cites but ignores, still block third party voip applications. And other service providers reportedly are blocking other ports. The harm is demonstrably there.
Technorati Tags: F2C
Comments:
Post a Comment
