[NCUC-DISCUSS] Server bans

Tue Aug 13 15:10:22 CEST 2013

That was so very well written!!

The only argument I could make is that while at one time, historically,  "Business" was the engine for establishing "Freedom" worldwide, the very nature of business has changed - making business and economic considerations paramount in consideration in any endeavor - thus limiting freedom.

In other words - using some free market economy as any reasoning for an action - instead of the impulse underlying the existence of the free market is specious.

And the impulse underlying the free market at this point in time is a consolidation of power and a reinforcement of business concerns over human concerns.

One can't say - "it's just about money" -- because money is just about power and control.    

That's my 2 cents...     
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothe Litt <litt at acm.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:17:12 
To: <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Server bans

 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers Yes it's obnoxious.  But it's a money play, not a freedom issue.  All of the other vendors (I don't know about Google) offer 'business' accounts that permit servers - and static IP addresses.  And freedom from port blocking.  You don't have to be a business to get one, you just have to be willing (able) to pay - they charge more for the same data rates.  And more for a static IP address (arguably a way to ration a scarce resource for IPv4 - but they seem to be on track to be stingy with IPv6 too.)

 If you go to their websites and look for (Small) Business services, you can see what's available.

 The theory behind this isn't a great conspiracy to restrict freedom.  It's that businesses tend to want servers more than individuals, businesses have more money - and this is a technical resource that allows price discrimination.   Also,  the typical consumer doesn't use the bandwidth they pay for (except in bursts); servers tend to use more.  (See also, 'bandwidth caps' - another obnoxious practice designed to extract more money from consumers.  And 'mail limits' that preclude 'bulk mail'  thru ISP servers at levels that a small mailing list exceeds - allegedly anti-spam, but actually forcing use of one's own servers - or a commercial mailing service.  And asymmetric speeds...)

 It's essentially the same theory that allows phone companies to charge more for 'business' service than for 'residential' - 

 I'm not saying that the basis of he theory is universally true.  But that's what it is.

 I'm all for the notion that this is a bad idea; individuals should be able to fully use the network without paying business rates.  I also recognize that it's increasingly difficult to make the distinction - many people have internet-based hobbies that are indistinguishable from small businesses run from homes.  And we certainly don't want the ISPs inspecting the bits to judge.  (Does the fact that I use SSL to protect passwords/data from snooping make me a real business?  No.  But how could they tell?)

 I have 'business' service at my residence since I need static IP addresses for several of the technologies that I use for my family network.   I had to fight with the ISP to get their terms of service to be non-self-contradictory - they cloned residential TOS to setup 'small business service'.  For example, they sold multiple static IP addresses, but the TOS said using more than one was a violation.  And I couldn't get all the issues resolved.  

 It would be great if someone wants to take on ISP Terms of Service.  As I've noted before with respect to registrar/registrant TOS, they are opaque.  They are subject to change at the whim of the provider.  They are heavily skewed against the consumer.  And if you need 'business class' service, the presumption that you are a business makes it difficult to use consumer protection laws when things go askew.  (The law presumes that a business-'business' contract was negotiated by equals, so most consumer protection laws don't apply.  And the ISP will argue that you bought the service as a 'business'.)  Then there are the mandatory arbitration and choice of law provisions.  If I were to have an issue with my service that went that far, I'd have to go to a court over a thousand miles from my home.  Despite the fact that my ISP has a fleet of attorneys within 10 miles...  I can't afford to stay in a hotel for a month or more of negotiations/court dates - the ISP has no such problem.  I could go on, but you get the idea.

 So by all means, get upset about restrictive, anti-consumer Terms of Service.  But recognize that it's purely a commercial dispute.  The basis is not (as far as I can tell) an attempt to suppress freedom.  It's a pure capitalist play to segment the market to maximize revenue and to rig contract terms so as to maximize vendor flexibility and minimize expenses.

 Arguing about it on the basis of 'freedom' is about as likely to succeed as arguing that Centrex / multi-line VoIP terminations should be available for home telephone service.  (OK, they should - Asterisk for home ought to be usable -- but again, it's an economic issue.)

 We're 'free' to pay for service that allows servers.   It may also be possible to buy bandwidth from these providers and setup an ISP with more reasonable terms -- if one can come up with a business model that supports it.  At least with DSL which has been under the telco umbrella.  The latest trick that the cable/fiber ISPs have used in their contracts with municipalities (to bring service to town) is to require the municipality to agree that internet service is not a telecommunications service - even if it shares the same transmission medium.  And thus the service is exempt from regulation by the municipality.  And so it becomes a 'free (or is that 'fee'?) market' vs. 'regulated utility' dispute.  The arguments on both sides don't bear repeating here. 

 The bottom line is that ISP TOS and pricing are a real mess - that real pro-consumer legal minds (I'm not an attorney, I just read contracts) could have a career fighting.

 What that battle has to do with ICANN/NCUC/NCSG is not at all clear.

 Timothe Litt ACM Distinguished Engineer -------------------------- This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed. On 12-Aug-13 23:15, DeeDee Halleck wrote:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers 

xx 
dd

 -- 

http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org 

 _______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss