Computers, Freedom, & Privacy 2008 Conference

Apparently, control of the program of the CFP conference has fallen into the hands of ideologues who seek to promote their selfish agendas (rather than the public good) via the conference. A good example is the session titled, "Network Neutrality: Beyond the Slogans." The title of the session creates the initial impression that perhaps one would see an unbiased presentation of the issues. However, the description, at http://www.cfp2008.org/wiki/index.php/Network_Neutrality:_Beyond_the_Slogans, contains one-sided and highly biased statements, such as "we have seen major violations of network neutrality" (as if this assertion and any definition of the term were not open to debate) and "debates over network neutrality are often not only contentious, but also unhelpful, if not dishonest" (as if it were a foregone conclusion that those who did not agree with the unnamed author of the description were necessarily dishonest). What's more, while the panelists are not listed, I have not been able to identify a single person who is actually in the business of providing Internet service who is on the panel; rather, all of the panelists I've identified appear to be lobbyists and/or people who take an extreme viewpoint on the topic. This obvious bias does harm to the credibility and reputation of the conference and its organizers.

I can understand your consternation, but the goal of the event is to get past exactly this sort of rhetoric. Given that even Comcast has admitted that they've been degrading certain traffic, the FCC is investigating several providers for similar behavior, and Vuze just completed a fairly in-depth analysis documenting the widespread use of tools that degrade certain types of traffic, claims of network neutrality violations aren't open to interpretation, they're statements of well-established and documented fact.

Given that the conference is run by public interest folks, many of whom have dedicated their lives to working for the public good; if you're going to disagree with the assessments, that's fine -- and might even add to the debate -- but ad hominems against these people don't really hold much water.

If the goal of the event is to "get past rhetoric," a session whose description is 100% loaded words rhetoric is not going to achieve that goal. Your use of the words "admitted" and "degrading" above is likewise loaded language. And the so-called "well documented facts" published by Vuze are in fact rhetoric and accusations which serve its own selfish financial interests.

If you wanted to get past rhetoric, you would say that Comcast has acknowledged that it is shaping traffic, which is not at all non-neutral. In fact, one could well say that by throttling P2P, which is decidedly non-neutral (it attempts to seize priority for itself by exploiting known bugs in TCP, and also shifts costs to ISPs), Comcast was attempting to maintain neutrality on its network.

It is the organizers of the conference who are launching ad hominem attacks against Comcast and against ISPs in general -- just as your loaded language above attacks them. I would say that my analysis not only holds water but exposes a group of Washington lobbyists who are manufacturing issues -- and bogeymen -- for their own self-enrichment. And I stand by my statement that they have hijacked the CFP Conference as a way of furthering their own interests in this way.

The Max Planck Institute in Germany just released further documentation of the fact that Comcast and Cox have been blocking bittorrent -- you can read about the research at PC World or read the Max Planck results on Comcast and Cox's networks for yourself. There's a large and growing scientific consensus about this. Your rhetoric reads like those folks who argue that global warming isn't happening or smoking doesn't cause cancer -- the notion that "Comcast was attempting to maintain neutrality is just laughable, particularly since they decided to stop the practice once they were caught doing it.

Documenting discriminatory practices isn't launching ad hominem attacks. There's a reason why a growing list of public interest groups are joining the effort to roll back these practices -- they're clearly in the best interest of the general public. But it's obvious that you have a particular perspective on things -- the notion that "a group of Washington lobbyists... have hijacked the CFP Conference" is simply laughable -- I say this as someone that's been on the coordinating committee and knows first-hand that your claim is categorically false.

Sascha, I am not denying that both Cox and Comcast are likely to be throttling BitTorren. For you to say otherwise is disingenuous. What I'm saying is that what they're doing is not only perfectly fine but a best practice -- and bully for them for doing it.

BitTorrent is an exploit. It attempts to seize priority for traffic -- bulk downloads and pirated material -- that should not have priority. It is also non-neutral in that it attempts to shift content providers' costs to ISPs. And it sets up servers on ISPs networks for third parties without permission or compensation.  It's a bad actor, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to throttle it back or even to block it altogether.

Unfortunately, a group of Washington lobbyists who have failed at fighting media concentration have decided that, now that they have lost that battle, they'll create an imaginary bogeyman and solicit contributions to fight it. And one of the ways they're trying to create that bogeyman, and spread FUD, is via industry conferences -- including CFP. Look at the list of organizers: two lobbyists from Free Press, three from EFF.... This is what happens when the lawyers and lobbyists run amok. And of course you yourself, Sascha, are now a lobbyist as well.

Wow, it sounds like anyone working for non-profit public interest groups that you disagree with is now a lobbyist. I would simply note that a growing host of independent research findings backs up the claims that I've been making. Instead of addressing the data, you're now calling me a lobbyist? I'm all for debate (which is why comments are completely open on my blog), but if you won't even read the research that shows that you are incorrect in your assertions, it becomes pretty hard to have a meaningful discussion on this topic.

The Max Planck research is particularly meaningful since there are pretty much only two countries (out of the scores and scores sampled) engaging in this practice, the US and Singapore. Apparently the rest of the world has figured out a way to deal with this so-called "exploit" -- maybe we should learn from the other 80+ countries that haven't had to engage in discrimination against Bittorrent?

Finally, if you look at the data collected from Cox and Comcast, you'll see that they are not just blockig Bittorrent when traffic is high (and congestion most likely), they are degrading Bittorrent all the time -- which means this isn't about congestion, it's a discriminatory practice against a specific application that's happening irregardless of actual network congestion.

If you want to ignore the growing amount of data documenting my position, you can do that; but most folks are going to look at the growing mountain of evidence (and the fact that the Max Planck Institute's research documents that just about no one else on earth is engaging is this sort of discriminatory business practice) and conclude that something's not right in what Comcast and Cox are doing.

You write:

Wow, it sounds like anyone working for non-profit public interest groups that you disagree with is now a lobbyist.

They're not "public interest" groups, because in fact they are working against the public interest. The truth is that they are self-interested, because they are creating issues that keep them employed. But in this case they will do great harm to the Internet and to consumers.

I would simply note that a growing host of independent research findings backs up the claims that I've been making.

Absolutely untrue. There's no need to do research to find out that ISPs throttle or block P2P. It's a best practice in the industry. Any responsible ISP should do it so as to prevent bandwidth hogging, cost shifting, and abuse of its network.

Your claims that there is something evil about this practice are not something which can be "backed up" by research, and they're bogus and self-serving.

Instead of addressing the data, you're now calling me a lobbyist?

There's no need to "address" your data. I'm addressing the alarmist and false claims you are basing on that data. And, yes, lobbying with. You're working for a DC thinktank. One whose work I used to think was benign. But obvioutly it has now turned destructive.

I'm all for debate (which is why comments are completely open on my blog), but if you won't even read the research that shows that you are incorrect in your assertions,

None of your "research" shows any such thing. And you're being disingenuous by suggesting that.

The Max Planck research is particularly meaningful since there are pretty much only two countries (out of the scores and scores sampled) engaging in this practice, the US and Singapore.

"Countries" do not engage in it; ISPs do. And your data is highly suspect, because P2P mitigation is also becoming standard practice among Japanese ISPs and it does not show that.

In any event, if you do believe that data, then you must believe that the US is ahead of the curve. Because it says that while other countries are just scratching their heads about why their Internet is slow and unreliable, we're inventing technology to deal with network abuse. That's a good thing.

Finally, if you look at the data collected from Cox and Comcast, you'll see that they are not just blockig Bittorrent when traffic is high (and congestion most likely), they are degrading Bittorrent all the time -- which means this isn't about congestion,

Nonsense. BitTorrent and other P2P software always grabs as much bandwidth as it can, so it is always a threat to the integrity and performance of the network. It must be throttled or blocked all the time. And it always constitutes setting up a server on the ISP's network, without compensation or permission, for entities which are not its customers. Therefore, blocking it is always appropriate.

it's a discriminatory practice against a specific application that's happening irregardless of actual network congestion.

It's a good thing to discriminate against malware, wherever and wherever it is used. And it's a good thing to stop network abuse whenever and wherever it happens. Sascha, you are going very, very much against the public interest here, and I am going to call you and anyone else who does this out on this issue. It's bad enough that you and your fellow lobbyists and lawyers are spreading FUD and have hijacked what once used to be a reputable conference; it's worse still that you're telling bald-faced lies to the public. You've lost any respect that I and others in the community may once have had for you.

Brett Glass,

I've read your comments with increasing incredulity. As a case in point, you lead off: "[non-profit public interest groups are] not 'public interest' groups, because in fact they are working against the public interest. The truth is that they are self-interested, because they are creating issues that keep them employed. But in this case they will do great harm to the Internet and to consumers."

For the record, the groups involved in the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition include (among others):

Consumer Federation of America
Consumers Union
EDUCAUSE
Free Press
Leadership Council on Civil Rights
Media Access Project
National Hispanic Media Coalition,
New America Foundation
Public Knowledge
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)

The statements you've been making run counter to established fact, yet you refuse to reassess your positions. Originally, I took your comments seriously and spoke with a number of other folks about the concerns you were raising -- I know that a number of people spent a good deal of time doing likewise.

Folks told me there's good reason why you've been banned from so many discussion forums, organizations, and collaborative endeavors. You're in danger of becoming a running joke -- you see conspiracies where none exist, enemies among your allies, are myopic to independent research and analysis, and demonstrate a complete incapability to reassess your positions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You're the straw man argument personified.

Interesting. You list large number of organizations which you yourself claim to be actively conspiring, and then claim that <i>I</i> am a conspiracy theorist?

As for  your other false and defamatory remarks above: such ad hominem attacks are typical of people who cannot argue on the merits. 

thanks for your post.perhaps you will like abercrombie ed hardy  mortgage rates  tiffanys Is not it?