Thursday, December 07, 2006
Deliberate discrimination: intent is key
My friend Martin Geddes, always thoughtful and provocative, in a comment on Framing Network Neutrality Right, writes:
My first reaction is that questions like this distract us from the main deal. When Telus blocked its union during its telephone strike, the violation of Network Neutrality was public and clear. When Verizon won't sell me DSL unless I already have voice service, that's openly deliberate anticompetitive discrimination too. When China blocks certain Web sites, or Iran takes down certain blogs, or Cablevision blocks Yankees games, it's no secret and it's not subtle, either. Internet access providers oppose Net Neutrality laws specifically so they can discriminate openly. Looking at specific detailed examples is useful -- we need to understand how Net Discrimination works, and we need to develop a body of case law to help us figure out where the lines are -- but it's not the main show.
My second reaction is that we need to know why these things were done.
For (1), (a) why would a provider deliberately *increase* the jitter? (b) Does that service provider have an interest in a VOIP service that's not subject to the same jitter? Unless the provider has a really good answer to (a) -- I can't imagine one -- and the answer to (b) is a resounding "no" it's First Degree Neutricide.
For (2) I'd want to know why double-trans-pacific is cheaper than direct -- I *can* imagine circumstances that'd make it cheaper, but I'd want to follow the money carefully -- who owns what and how are prices set? Then I'd want to know how IMS+QOS VOIP service is offered to the end user customer, as a telephony service or as Y.A. Internet Application. If the latter, then is IMSQOSVOIP offered to all comers under the same terms? And I'd also want to know whether IMS+QOS is offered to all comers for other apps. I'd want to look into the defendant's eyes. I'd want to probe for anti-competitive intent. Not enough information.
For (3) Port blocking, except by the end user itself, is a crime, in my opinion. But I'd still want to know why is the Internet Access Provider (I presume it is an access provider and not primarily a provider of applications e.g., email or voip services) blocking Port 25? Is it supposedly to control spam? Is it supposedly to block naive customers from using other email providers? Does the provider make unblocking easy? Like with other crimes, "everybody else does it," is no defense. Indict on First Degree Neutricide and send to trial; be prepared to accept Netslaughter as a reduced charge for mitigating circumstances.
Maybe I should end with a hearty "IANAL".
1. I change the queueing algorithm in my routers in a way that causes more jitter. Murder, manslaughter, or not guilty? ["Class of service discrimination"]
2. I'm an Australian ISP, but my cheapest route to New Zealand is a double trans-pacific trip adding lots of latency -- although my IMS+QoS VoIP service goes direct. Murder, manslaugher, or not guilty? ["Class of destination discrimination"]
3. I'm an ISP and I distribute DSL modems whose default firewall settings block port 25 to anywhere but my own mail relays. Murder, manslaugher, or not guilty? ["Edge device/retail channel discrimination"]
My first reaction is that questions like this distract us from the main deal. When Telus blocked its union during its telephone strike, the violation of Network Neutrality was public and clear. When Verizon won't sell me DSL unless I already have voice service, that's openly deliberate anticompetitive discrimination too. When China blocks certain Web sites, or Iran takes down certain blogs, or Cablevision blocks Yankees games, it's no secret and it's not subtle, either. Internet access providers oppose Net Neutrality laws specifically so they can discriminate openly. Looking at specific detailed examples is useful -- we need to understand how Net Discrimination works, and we need to develop a body of case law to help us figure out where the lines are -- but it's not the main show.
My second reaction is that we need to know why these things were done.
For (1), (a) why would a provider deliberately *increase* the jitter? (b) Does that service provider have an interest in a VOIP service that's not subject to the same jitter? Unless the provider has a really good answer to (a) -- I can't imagine one -- and the answer to (b) is a resounding "no" it's First Degree Neutricide.
For (2) I'd want to know why double-trans-pacific is cheaper than direct -- I *can* imagine circumstances that'd make it cheaper, but I'd want to follow the money carefully -- who owns what and how are prices set? Then I'd want to know how IMS+QOS VOIP service is offered to the end user customer, as a telephony service or as Y.A. Internet Application. If the latter, then is IMSQOSVOIP offered to all comers under the same terms? And I'd also want to know whether IMS+QOS is offered to all comers for other apps. I'd want to look into the defendant's eyes. I'd want to probe for anti-competitive intent. Not enough information.
For (3) Port blocking, except by the end user itself, is a crime, in my opinion. But I'd still want to know why is the Internet Access Provider (I presume it is an access provider and not primarily a provider of applications e.g., email or voip services) blocking Port 25? Is it supposedly to control spam? Is it supposedly to block naive customers from using other email providers? Does the provider make unblocking easy? Like with other crimes, "everybody else does it," is no defense. Indict on First Degree Neutricide and send to trial; be prepared to accept Netslaughter as a reduced charge for mitigating circumstances.
Maybe I should end with a hearty "IANAL".
Technorati Tags: NetworkNeutrality, Telepocalypse
Comments:
An example of a provider doing port blocking as in (3) is Cox Communications; there are lots of other examples. They do it to force their users to use their own mail servers for outbound relay, which allows them to better control spam generated by bot-infected users. Most bots send spam directly to destination mail servers, so this actually has been at least temporarily somewhat effective. Cox does not institute port 25 blocking on cable modem customers paying for business service, even if that service is delivered to a home (like my house, I'm a Cox business user).
# posted by 
: 12/12/2006 12:40 PM
: 12/12/2006 12:40 PM
We are a small web hosting provider and all this Port 25 blocking by ISPSs has been nothing but a headache. We created a little obituary for 25 the other day: http://retrixhosting.blogspot.com/2006/12/in-memoriam-port-25.html... enjoy!
Post a Comment
# posted by : 12/18/2006 4:44 PM
: 12/18/2006 4:44 PM
