On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:30:16 -0400 "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
Seems on-topic, even though policy related.
It seems to me that "Net Neutrality" has been conflagrated into meaning both of two separate things: (a) congestion management (b) restricting access to certain websites etc., such that an SP creates a Walled Garden, that either the customer or the content provider is expected to pay to or to provide access too. I'm not against (a), because fundamental assumptions of the Internet/TCP were short and brusty traffic, which implies end-nodes sharing network resources, and only dominating them for relatively short periods. P2P destroys (and yes, that is intentionally a strong word) that assumption. OTOH, (b) is something I completely object to. ISPs are a conduit, not a controller of content. So, there's the problem. According to the above, I'm both for, and against, Network Neutrality. One thing which would significantly help this argument for or against Network Neutrality is defining exactly what it is. Regards, Mark.