On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 6:34 PM Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > 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. >
If you buy service from a network that subsidizes the price of your connection by selling your data, that is your choice. You could use a VPN or buy a network service (even a dedicated line) for a higher price that does not sell your data. Their network, their rules, but you choose the network. -- Bob Harold > 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
