Paul, it might be worth asking whether you believe that isps should be selling eyeballs. If you think they should, then your argument makes sense. It’s the same argument isps give for charging me for service and then charging Netflix for access to me.
If you don’t agree with this model, then your argument that whoever built the network has the right to dictate terms is inconsistent. On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 15:26 Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > i had to think about this for quite a long time. i've trimmed the cc > headers. > > Christian Huitema wrote on 2019-03-12 20:39: > > > > On 3/12/2019 7:56 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> ... > > > > The mirror image of that statement is, "when did intermediaries get > > a mandate to filter content?" > > it was rarely a mandate, though various governments have made it one for > various intermediaries. let me answer a different question, when did > intermediaries gain the right or responsibility or both for filtering > content? because that answer is simple: when they started building and > operating it, investing in it, and either profiting or losing from it. > > their networks, their rules. which is only potentially unfair when they > are also monopolies, in which case their end systems and edge networks > have no alternatives. the law may want to recognize when a monopoly > exists and set some minimums and maximums on intermediary operator > rights and responsibilities. but that's not an architecture question. > > > ... The internet architecture assumes full connectivity. At some > > point, people deployed middle-boxes and filtered content because > > they could. > > as seems natural, since the internet architecture is neither viral nor > communist, and anyone who connects a network to that network-of-networks > called "the internet" has always treated all policy as local, since all > responsibility for its emissions and uptime was theirs and only theirs. > > > They did not exactly try to get a mandate, or obtain consensus that > > this was proper. > > no consensus was needed. if someone broke your rules, you stopped them > or disconnected them. that was true for the NSFnet AUP, and it's true of > every network's AUP today, and every corporate or family network's policy.. > > > Technologies like DoH force the discussion in the open. Why do you > > think you can filter content? Who made you king? > > i think that's hyperbole. i am at best a prince, and only of the > territory i personally pay to build and connect, and only in the eyes of > people who use my network. anyone who dislikes my rules can search for > some other internet-connected network whose rules they like better. this > is not a dictatorship, but certainly is a coalition of the willing. > > -- > P Vixie > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
