(pardon me if this message is not formatted correctly, T-bird doesn't like this list)

I agree that this is not the proper venue for discussion of the politics of Internet regulation; the post I wrote for GigaOm has comments enabled, and many people with an anti-capitalist bone to pick have already availed themselves of that forum to advocate for the people's revolution. There are some technical issues that might be of more interest and relevance to operators, however.

* One claim I made in my blog post is that traffic increases on the Internet aren't measured by MINTS very well. MINTS uses data from Meet-me switches, but IX's and colos are pulling x-connects like mad so more and more traffic is passing directly through the x-connects and therefore not being captured by MINTS. Rate of traffic increase is important for regulators as it relates to the cost of running an ISP and the need for traffic shaping. Seems to me that MINTS understates traffic growth, and people are dealing with it by lighting more dark fiber, pulling more fiber, and the x-connects are the tip of the iceberg that says this is going on.

* A number of people said I have no basis for the claim that paid peering is on the increase, and it's true that the empirical data is slim due to the secretive nature of peering and transit agreements. This claim is based on hearsay and on the observation that Comcast now has a nationwide network and a very open policy regarding peering and paid peering. So if paid peering is only increasing at Comcast, now a top 10 network, it's increasing overall.

* Some other people said I'm not entitled to have an opinion; so much for democracy and free speech.

I'd be glad to hear from anyone who has data or informed opinions on these subjects, on-list of off-. The reason you should share is that people in Washington and Brussels listen to me, so it's in everybody's interest for me to be well-informed; I don't really have an ax to grind one way or another, but I do want law and regulation to be based on fact, not speculation and ideology.

Thanks and have a nice day.

RB

Darren Bolding wrote:
Whether or not Mr Bennett has any idea what he is talking about- and I have started to develop an opinion on that subject myself- I really would rather not see Nanog become a forum for partisan political discussion. There are _lots_ of places for that, which as a political junkie I read regularly. I like Nanog in part because it typically steers clear of this sort of thing (and you know the mailing list charter sez....) and in some way serves as a refreshing change between reading Daily Kos and Powerline blogs.

I will also say that while Mr Bennett's affiliation and paycheck have some relevance to interpreting what he says, it isn't justification for tossing everything he says out. If he seems to have no idea what he is talking about, that is reason for tossing out what he says.

One final point- referring to conservadems is about as telling about perspective as certain people referring to RINO's. Bennett hasn't said anything blatantly partisan (perhaps he is to polished for that), his critics certainly have. You diminish your argument by doing so.

I say all this even though some of the people getting engaged in this are people I've known for a while and respect a great deal, and others are ones I've read on Nanog for a number of years.

I'm actually intersted in the substantive content, but I'd rather avoid the rest if you wouldn't mind.

Thanks for listening,

--D


On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:13 AM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu <mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>> wrote:

    On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said:

    >                        ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
    > in principle, having released a paper on "A Third Way on Network
    > Neutrality", http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=63.

    All of four paragraphs, which don't in fact address what the
    provider is or is
    not providing to Joe Sixpack - point 1 says discriminatory plans
    are OK as long
    as the discriminatory are on display in the cellar of the ISP
    office, with no
    stairs, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a
    disused lavatory
    with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.

    And points 2 and 3 are saying that this should all be overseen by
    the same
    agencies that oversaw the previous decade's massive buildout of
    fiber to the
    home that was financed by massive multi-billion dollar incentives.

    Oh wait, those billions got pocketed - if the massive fiber
    buildout had
    happened, we'd have so much bandwidth that neutrality wouldn't be
    an issue...

    But then, the Republicans keep saying they are not opposed to
    health care
    reform in principle either...




--
--  Darren Bolding                  --
--  dar...@bolding.org <mailto:dar...@bolding.org>           --

--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC

Reply via email to