At 02:10 PM 9/16/2008, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
[SNIP]
However, blocking of protocols is going to open up the same can of
worms we're dealing with now in the ground-based Internet. Will
people try to do high-traffic P2P from the air?
Brett Glass wrote:
You bet. In fact, they may not be able to help it. P2P apps (the
authors know they're stealing anyway, so why should they give a fig
about the user's wishes?) often start up in the background every
time the computer boots, without notifying the user that they will
be eating his or her bandwidth.
While I agree with Brett's concern about the vagueness of the FCC's
ruling (below), I take exception to his use of loaded terms ("stealing").
P2P authors aren't stealing anything. They are providing their users
with a service, which the users can use or not as they please. The only
way a user will find himself uploading files is if he has first
_down_loaded them -- and then left his P2P service on. A user can
a) not use the P2P app at all,
b) not download any files.
c)use it to download the files he wants, then turn it off (a
violation of the unwritten accords of the P2P community, but not
illegal, impossible, or even a breach of contract).
*Lots* of applications start up in the background whenever the computer
boots. XAMPP does (if you enable the function). I find XAMPP
invaluable for debugging my websites before I put them out where the
general public can see them.
I have dozens of auto-start services on my machine (not even counting
the ones that are built into Windows...). My antivirus program, Google
Updater, CD management, iPOD software (and I don't even have an iPOD),
Trillian (which I do use routinely), 5 VMWare processes, Vines...
*If* anybody is "stealing" (and I don't think anybody is), then it's the
users who choose to install P2P against the ISP's ToS. But I doubt such
ToS's are valid, in view of the FCC's policy statement, .
In any event, this situation reflects the vagueness of the FCC's
recent ruling against Comcast. What is permitted? What is not?
Under what conditions? The FCC, ignoring the Constitutional prohibition
of vague laws, doesn't say. In fact, no one knows, at this point, whether
ANY network management practice might rile the FCC, and small broadband
providers such as myself are worried that we might be next to be
pilloried, without warning, as was Comcast. See my filing at
http://tinyurl.com/5gfn6p
As I said, I agree that the ruling is excessively vague. Also that it
failed to give Comcast due process, and that it almost certainly exceeds
the authority delegated by Congress.
At the same time, I consider about half of your 20 examples "lifeboat
cases," that either wouldn't arise in the real world, or that would be
so obvious -- even to the boneheads at the FCC -- that they wouldn't
lead to enforcement action.(*) It's the other 10 I worry about.
(*) The most obvious example: a school blocking content in compliance
with COPA. Compliance with an explicit statute trumps any general
policy on "allowing users to run their choice of applications and devices".
