Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Jun 2006 17:40 UTC
Internet & Networking "The inventor of the WWW has a short, to-the-point post that explains exactly why supporting real, bona fide net neutrality is the Right Thing to Do. I absolutely encourage you to read the entire post, but really he sums up the whole argument for net neutrality in his opening sentence: 'When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission.' If you think about it in terms of start-ups having to ask the permission of AT&T to innovate, then the whole net neutrality issue becomes less complicated."
Permalink for comment 137215
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Artificial conditions
by The1stImmortal on Mon 26th Jun 2006 07:56 UTC
Member since:

I think the core of the issue is not so much that of QoS, but *artificially* modifying and tampering with the network's implementation to limit/encourage certain traffic for the network owner's financial or political gain.

In other words, if you're trying to access a site on a bad link, then it'll be slow, that's the way it is. If you're using VoIP and requesting a certain QoS then you'll get granted or not that level of service depending on the network's capability of providing such. BUT if the network owner is deliberately tampering with traffic systems such that a given QoS (or even access at all) is provided or not based more on financial arrangements (or political expediency) than the network's ability to provide it then that is discrimination and IMHO wrong. If you can't get decent access to a certain website and the provider is perfectly capable of giving decent access, yet access to a partner's site is fine, then the providor is being non-neutral. Note that I mean site in the broader sense of services-available-through, not in the sense of "website".

Discrimination on the basis of being a "good net citizen" is a grey zone. DoS attacks, etc... there probably isn't a right answer here, like with many grey issues.

The backbone issue:
There are cases, maybe or maybe not in america, but certainly elsewhere, where there is only a fuzzy distinction between the ISPs and the backbone providers. Telstra in Australia is a prime example. This means that it's just as much an ISP issue as a backbone provider issue. Your ISP is just as capable of expediting access to affiliated networks at the expense of others as backbone providers are.

Yes, I'm rambling slightly. Hopefully you all get what I mean ;)

Reply Score: 1