"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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-15
Well, you may have meant to say those things, but they certainly weren't in the rest of the post I quoted.
I consider any descrimination of traffic to start to encroach on net neutrality.
That's an unusual view. From the introduction of the "type of service" field in the original TCP design, traffic discrimination was part of the net.
As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, typically, "net neutrality" means a particular type of discrimination. (Tim Wu's original description is still the easiest to understand.)
What I am concerned about is descrimination based on the app type, the traffic type, the point of origin, the point of destination, the type of connection and so forth.
This is closer to the common understanding of the term. (without the 'and so forth'.)
You can't operate a network without some discrimination. Discrminating against DoS attacks is a good thing, for example. QoS based discrimination is an economics thing and makes sense: if someone wants atypical SLAs they should have to pay more.
Member since:2006-06-19
disrimination - Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit.
As stated a bit is a bit and nothing should be evaluated beyond that. DoS is a pattern attack that can still have neutrality but will be filtered due to a obivous pattern that is used for nothing except a DoS.
type of service flag would be individual merit, and would be fair IMO because it is simply evaluation based on a bit and nothing else like who paid what, who is hoggin what, who is not friends with whom, who partnered it who and so forth. Also the sender is the one "asking" for a certain level of service or priority and nothing says they get that level.
As (I THINK) I also stated it is a VERY hard subject to discuss unless you are face to face and banter back and forth to understand the context of all the terms. I just dont think we need to simplify it and make it about any one thing right now because it will still be manipulated in other ways. So to truly adopt net neutrality we have to go back to my premise that a bit is a bit and nothing else. Every bit is treated the same. The if data is dropped because of, for example congestion, then if it is done fairly without discrimination then nobody can complain because the internet isn't guaranteed delivery BUT it also shouldnt be about someone controlling something else. IMO 
And my original post stated
"... if my traffic gets dropped FAIRLY then so be it but if I am being dropped/blocked because of traffic type, bandwidth usage(paid for remember), or simply because I come from a network that is a strong competitor to another network then THAT is the problem."
Which I thought implied that a bit should be treated as a bit and that would be true net neutrality. I think that paying for a 3mb connection would guarantee something since it didnt say I have a connection to PART of the internet that they can afford due to discrimination against their network since a lot of their users are heavy voip users.
Member since:
2006-06-19
I agree the PART that you decided to quote isn't because it was a response to another post, but if you fully quote my post then that is exactly what I go on to try and discuss.
QoS is another term that depends on context so I think instead of just saying it is about Qos we need to define it a bit more in normal terms. QoS could be discussing packet priority, traffic shaping policy, guaranteed routing along reserver routes.
Charging different rates would be one way to descriminate but another would be to charge everyone the same rate and block everyones voip coming thru your network. Everyone would still be getting the SAME QoS but it would still not be net neutrality because they were still descriminating against a certain type of traffic.
That is why my post goes on to talk about...
"if my traffic gets dropped FAIRLY then so be it but if I am being dropped/blocked because of traffic type, bandwidth usage(paid for remember), or simply because I come from a network that is a strong competitor to another network then THAT is the problem"
Thats right i pay for a 3mb connection on my providers network but the purpose of that connection IS to get internet. I never said that I expected 3meg connection to the whole world. But if I get dropped unfairly due to type of traffic, too many requests, application type, or because my network is on the shit list then YES that is exactly what net neutrality deals with.
I consider any descrimination of traffic to start to encroach on net neutrality.
It certainly starts with providers getting into pissing matches about how much one charges another one but certainly does not end there. I mean if I am XYZ and I only send 1gig of traffic a hour should I really pay the same as ABC who sends a 100gigs of traffic a hour across your network? Should they be charging by the amount? SHould they be able to partner? All of that is still just the tip of the iceberg and THAT is nothing but a pissing match that will simply go around and around. I personally could care less who charges who what and so forth because as long as competition exists then I will likely win and as long as A pays B who pays C who pays D who pays A then it is just a game they play. What I am concerned about is descrimination based on the app type, the traffic type, the point of origin, the point of destination, the type of connection and so forth.
I mean right now cable and satelite are not real good friends. I certianly would be charging them the same...but my routers would know what traffic got high priority and which traffic got LOW priority.
Maybe the RIAA has good connections with CharterCable so they manage to work a deal where all napster traffic is blocked or something? All of a sudden my data is not treated fairly. The net is no longer neutral, it is no longer a level playing field for bits and bytes.
oh well....whatever you say dude
Maybe tommorrow XYZ will decide that all POP traffic is spam and block it. I guess that will be all right since they are charging every other provider the same amount?