Je pense qu'il est important de distinguer 1) Net neutrality : tu ne touches ni ne modifies mes paquets IPs et me laisse discuter de bout en bout sans essayer de t'imiscer dans ce qui ne te regarde pas. --> je pense que pas grand monde en tous les cas en Europe n'enfreint pour le moment ce principe et ceux qui font des annonces le font uniquement pour des buts de marketing de bas niveau (spécialité anglosaxonne) car cela me semble difficile à faire techniquement. La Qos ca fait 10 ans qu'on en parle et personne n'a jamais rien fait à part pipeauter.
2) Peering policies entre fournisseurs de contenu et fournisseur d'accès: Il me semble que certains oublient que il n'y a pas de raisons que l'internet échappe à l'économie liberale, globalisée qui régit notre pauvre monde. Je vends (à bas prix) ce que je n'ai pas forcement à quelqu'un qui n'en a pas besoin. En vertu de cette economie liberale, il me semble logique que l'opérateur réseau qui se fatigue à connecter la polulation à Internet n'ai pas envie de peerer gratuitement avec un fournisseur de contenu populaire qui s'est contenté de mettre qques machines dans un datacenter. C'est le serpent qui se mord la queue et je ne vois pas trop comment le fournisseur de contenu qui au passage à un modele économique souvent douteux (buble 3.0) pourra échapper à payer une dime proportionelle au traffic généré pour atteindre l'eyeballs. Pour conclure, on n'est pas dans la m.... :) Greg VILLAIN writes: > Hors de tout propos éculé et philosophie obscurantiste discount, les > mots de Vinton Cerf sont assez justes (voire avant-gardistes pour > 2005) sur ce thème précis, et valent le coup d'être lus. > (contrairement a son ex-collègue Larry Roberts et ses routeurs flow- > based qui lavent plus blanc que blanc - ceci-dit on peut taxer les > deux d'utopie à lire ce thread) > > " > Dear Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell, > > [bla bla bla corporate, il est désolé, il peut pas venir] > > Despite my inability to participate in the planned hearing in person, > I hope that you will accept some brief observations about this > legislation. > > The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is > in many ways directly attributable to the architectural > characteristics that were part of its design. The Internet was > designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. The > Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at > each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By > placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of > the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation. This > has led to an explosion of offerings from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to > blogging that might never have evolved had central control of the > network been required by design. > > My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the > Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network > operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to > potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in > control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment > their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own > services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country > and economy need. Many people will have little or no choice among > broadband operators for the foreseeable future, implying that such > operators will have the power to exercise a great deal of control over > any applications placed on the network. > > As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non- > discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality > rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. > Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network > operators should not dictate what people can do online. > > I am confident that we can build a broadband system that allows users > to decide what websites they want to see and what applications they > want to use and that also guarantees high quality service and > network security. That network model has and can continue to provide > economic benefits to innovators and consumers -- and to the broadband > operators who will reap the rewards for providing access to such a > valued network. > > We appreciate the efforts in your current draft to create at least a > starting point for net neutrality principles. Google looks forward to > working with you and your staff to draft a bill that will maintain the > revolutionary potential of the broadband Internet. > > Thank you for your attention and for your efforts on these important > issues. > > Sincerely, > > Vinton Cerf > Chief Internet Evangelist > Google Inc. > " > > Greg VILLAIN > Wanabee chief internet evangelist (y'a que moi que ça choque ce terme ?) > > > --------------------------- > Liste de diffusion du FRnOG > http://www.frnog.org/ > --------------------------- Liste de diffusion du FRnOG http://www.frnog.org/
