This is from a /. link, but perhaps some may have overlooked it. Richard Bennett does seem to have some authority and contributes some broader scope thought on the issue.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/86147_net_neutrality_innovation_081/ Some quotes: "The neutrality framework doesn’t mesh with technical reality: The Internet is too neutral in some places, and not neutral enough in others. "The Internet’s congestion avoidance mechanism, an afterthought that was tacked-on in the late 80’s, reduces and increases the rate of TCP streams to match available network resources, but it doesn’t molest UDP at all. So the Internet is not neutral with respect to its two transport protocols. "The Internet is non-neutral with respect to applications and to location, but it’s overly neutral with respect to content, which causes gross inefficiency as we move into the large-scale transfer of HDTV over the Internet. Over-the-air delivery of TV programming moves one copy of each show regardless of the number of people watching, but the Internet transmits one copy per viewer, because the transport system doesn’t know anything about the content. Hit TV shows are viewed by tens of millions of viewers, and their size is increasing as HDTV catches on, so there’s major engineering to do to adapt the Internet to this mission. Until this re-engineering is done, HDTV is trouble for the Internet. " I wondered if Phil K. had any comment on the congestion avoidance remark. The last quoted remark reminds me of the suggestion that URI should identify content (not source location) -- seems to me that it has some things in common with P2P. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
