Re: PICS required by laws

From:	IN%"sjb@universe.digex.net"  "Scott Brickner" 16-APR-1996 19:02:13.04

>The sorts of organizations that form the core of the internet, and are
>involved in this network layer censorship scheme, just *aren't* the
>sort of "subversives" (or "patriots", take your pick) that would try to
>bypass the system.

	I am not quite certain if the model of
[content provider]-[ISP]-[Phones]-[ISP]-[ISP]-[user] is going to work much
longer. That routes the material through quite a few too many bottlenecks,
among them the phone lines. I could reasonably easily sign up with two ISPs
and start myself as a router (with a good computer and the right software),
from what I know of the subject; with ecash routing of messages, this might
get quite common (and profitable).
	When you've got a few large organizations doing the routing, what
you've said is _probably_ correct. When you've got a lot of people doing it
out of their garages, then it isn't.
	-Allen

"E. ALLEN SMITH" writes:
>	I am not quite certain if the model of
>[content provider]-[ISP]-[Phones]-[ISP]-[ISP]-[user] is going to work much
>longer. That routes the material through quite a few too many bottlenecks,
>among them the phone lines. I could reasonably easily sign up with two ISPs
>and start myself as a router (with a good computer and the right software),
>from what I know of the subject; with ecash routing of messages, this might
>get quite common (and profitable).
>	When you've got a few large organizations doing the routing, what
>you've said is _probably_ correct. When you've got a lot of people doing it
>out of their garages, then it isn't.
>	-Allen

The problem is that it requires the cooperation of both of your ISPs.
You'll never receive packets to route from either of them unless you
have some sort of contract in place.  In the scenario I outlined, the
"common carrier" status of the ISPs is contingent on their following
the censorship protocol, so their contract will require that you, too,
follow it.

The network layer isn't the geodesic Bob H likes to talk about.  That
doesn't happen until the transport layer (one higher).  It's a
heirarchical star, with a relatively small number of big ISPs acting as
the hub, several groups of regional ISPs acting as local arms, and many
local ISPs acting as the end-points.

Even in the face of a "digital silk road", this isn't likely to
change.  The cost of operating a router is proportional to the number
of connections it has.  The vast majority of traffic doesn't have
stringent enough delay requirements that it'll be willing to pay the
additional cost of going through a very highly connected router.
Therefore the hierarchical star configuration is near-optimal for
normal traffic (and pretty much all of the stuff that they claim they
want to censor).

At 2:24 PM  -0400 5/6/96, Scott Brickner wrote:
> The network layer isn't the geodesic Bob H likes to talk about.  That
> doesn't happen until the transport layer (one higher).  It's a
> heirarchical star, with a relatively small number of big ISPs acting as
> the hub, several groups of regional ISPs acting as local arms, and many
> local ISPs acting as the end-points.

Actually, I once lapsed and *did* say the "h" word about the network layer
around here about 6 months ago, and I got slapped severely around the head
and sholders, by Gilmore, if memory serves.

Knowing enough not to argue with my elders and betters, :-), I immediately
recanted and now assert geodecity(!) until proven otherwise.

If I remember right, Gilmore said something about a monstorous
preponderence of packet traffic still being handled by relatively beensy
direct lines...

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"If they could 'just pass a few more laws',
  we would all be criminals."    --Vinnie Moscaritolo
The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/