[discuss] Network neutrality language [wascFINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING]
Louis Pouzin (well)
pouzin at well.com
Sat May 3 02:30:27 UTC 2014
Net Neutrality and Quality of Service
Coalition on network neutrality, IGF 2013, Bali
*The original meaning of the word internet has drifted from packet
switching infrastructure to anything using it. Net neutrality has no
technical definition. We summarize the positions of operators, content
providers and users. The lack of well defined operator service and non
committing contracts generate suspicion and frustration among users.
Content providers and operators are reluctant to invest in network
upgrades. Managing services by QoS lets users choose their own end to end
quality across nets. Finally, ICANN keeps a lock on its non-neutral DNS for
protecting its monopoly.*
- - -
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Mike Roberts <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us> wrote:
> If there is to be progress on net neutrality, the advocates for it need to
> take a full stop and review the technical reality of what is before us. The
> search for convenient one-liners is leading many astray, including
> Brian's note touches the tip of the iceberg.
> Reality also includes legal and regulatory reality. Enforceable good
> behavior by providers involves more than arm waving. Especially since the
> law of unintended consequences is almost guaranteed to operate in such a
> fast changing environment.
> Remember how certain we were in the US about how breaking AT&T into
> intra-lata and inter-lata halves was going to be the perfect cure for
> monopoly? Funny how it didn't turn out that way. Billions were spent
> driving wedges through switching centers in search of competition. What
> actually happened was that packet switching on fiber links destroyed
> circuit switching and the empires that had grown up around it.
> The FCC has lost twice in the courts trying to find a statutorily
> acceptable solution to Open Internet challenges. And consumed a half dozen
> years in the process. Chairman Wheeler is getting it from all sides as he
> seeks a fresh approach that will not be turned around in court yet again. A
> "feel good" solution that is reversed in 2018, leaving us then where we are
> now doesn't sound exciting, does it?
> Let's not give ourselves credit for more knowledge about how to deal with
> net neutrality than we possess.
> - Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss