If this article on the FCC chairman Michael Powell is right, then the guy deserves a lot more support than he’s currently getting. But if he really wants to protect the end-to-end principle of the Internet, there is a small but important thing he should do.
The words people use constrain the thoughts they can express. I would suggest that the use of the term Internet in marketing of access services be regulated. “Internet access” would imply a pure end-to-end pipe access. No ports or IP addresses blocked. Static IP address. No QoS meddling. No contractual limits on use of the service for hosting a home server. Anyone who tries to sell a corrupted pipe would have to use a regulated phrase like “restricted Internet access” or somesuch. Enforce a standard listing of those restrictions, just like credit card terms and conditions. Who would buy restricted access without first asking what those restrictions are.
Some leeway can be added in to enable networks to block ports etc. as a temporary means of protecting the network from transient attacks.
In some ways this reflects the Cluetrain concept of markets as conversations. We should not regulate what is said, but just regulate the semantics of certain phrases. Free milkshake with every burger doesn’t leave any leeway in what I expect to receive. Internet access should be the same.
Let the market decide. But make sure that decision is fully informed.
Posted by Martin Geddes at 05:08 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telepocalypse.net/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/mgeddes/MT/mt-tb.cgi/34.
Amen. I am told that Optimum Online recently stopped providing public IP address to its subscribers and provides only NATed address. Interestingly, this coincided with their VoIP service offering.
Aswath
Posted by: at November 14, 2003 10:44 AM