Many organizations clamor the FCC for regulation because they hate something about the top 10, 20, etc. ISPs. There is certainly something to hate about them, but almost every time, the baby gets thrown out with the bath water and little ISPs are harmed along the way. Extremes on both sides are what get attention, meanwhile nothing constructive for little ISPs gets done. The policy community forgets them.
That same sort of forget about the little guys happens in technical discussions in NANOG as well. Most ISPs and most web hosts have less than 1G of upstream and likely from a single provider. The technical community forgets them. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patr...@ianai.net> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 6:22:27 PM Subject: Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal I am somehow please that Mr. Glass does not find me a “knowledgeable network professional”. It feels like a badge of honor. Any other “not” knowledgeable network professionals want to come forward and accept this badge? Personally, I find the FCC’s current rules to be sub-optimal. But saying a gov’t regulation is sub-optimal is like saying water is wet. The question is not whether the regulation could be improved. It is whether the proposed changes are an improvement. To be 10000% clear: I prefer the current privacy regime over the new one being proposed. Oh, and I do not believe the EFF is just a shill for Google. But then, I’m just a not knowledgeable network professional, so what do I know? -- TTFN, patrick > On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Brett Glass <na...@brettglass.com> wrote: > > All: > > It's worth noting that most of EFF's list consists of individuals and/or > politically connected organizations, not actual ISPs. This is for good > reason. EFF was founded with the intention of creating a civil rights > organization but has morphed into a captive corporate lobbying shop for > Google, to which several of its board members have close financial ties. EFF > opposes the interests of hard working ISPs and routinely denigrates them and > attempts to foster promotes hatred of them. It also promotes and lobbies for > regulations which advantage Google and disadvantage ISPs -- including the > so-called "broadband privacy" regulations, which heavily burden ISPs while > exempting Google from all oversight. > > No knowledgeable network professional or ISP would support the current FCC > rules. Both they AND the FCC's illegal Title II classification of ISPs must > be rolled back, restoring the FTC's ability to apply uniform and apolitical > privacy standards to all of the players in the Internet ecosystem. The first > step is to support S.J. Res 34/H.J. Res 86, the Congressional resolution > which would revoke the current FCC regulations that were written and paid for > by Google and its lobbyists. So, DO contact your legislators... but do so in > support of the resolutions that will repeal the regulations. It is vital to > the future of the Internet. > > --Brett Glass, Owner and Founder, LARIAT.NET > > At 05:05 PM 3/26/2017, Peter Eckersley wrote: > >> Dear network operators, >> >> I'm sure this is a controversial topic in the NANOG community, but EFF and a >> number of ISPs and networking companies are writing to Congress opposing the >> repeal of the FCC's broadband privacy rules, which require explicit opt-in >> consent before ISPs use or sell sensitive, non-anonymized data (including >> non-anonymized locations and browsing histories). >> >> If you or your employer would like to sign on to such a letter, please reply >> off-list by midday Monday with your name, and a one-sentence description of >> your affiliation and/or major career accomplishments.
