"It's all a question of how discrimination is defined and how the managed services are going to be regulated."
Exactly. But how does one even begin to define this in law? "One persistent myth is that 'network neutrality' somehow requires that all packets be treated identically" This is something I didn't realize. This completely negates the ISP argument that NN will legislate "dumb networks". Prioritizing an e911 call shouldn't be an issue, obviously. I also I never thought there was an issue with ISPs prioritizing VOIP, DNS or Video traffic if an end user was willing to pay for it. Prioritizing the 5-tuple between a host and server is reasonable so long as it has nothing to do with an arrangement between the IP service provider and the ISP. That's the arrangement I am most concerned about. It's not in the public's best interest to have high bandwidth services only offered by those with the most capital. Then we'll end up with what radio and television have become. Offering to prioritize services for the END USER is not only another source of revenue for ISPs but it'll boot sales for OEMs because they'll be selling the gear to make it possible. Sounds like a fine plan to me. On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 7:30 PM, George Ou <[email protected]>wrote: > It's all a question of how discrimination is defined and how the managed > services are going to be regulated. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou <nnsquad-bounces%2Bgeorge_ou>= > [email protected]] On Behalf Of > Lauren Weinstein > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 3:00 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ NNSquad ] Internet Pioneers Speak Out on Net Neutrality > > > > Internet Pioneers Speak Out on Net Neutrality > > http://www.vortex.com/FCC-Net-Neutrality-Letter.pdf > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000625.html > > > 15 October 2009 > > Honorable Julius Genachowski > Chairman, Federal Communications Commission > Washington, DC > Via email > > Dear Mr. Chairman: > > We appreciate the opportunity to send you this letter. As individuals > who have worked on the Internet and its predecessors continuously > beginning in the late 1960s, we are very concerned that access to the > Internet be both open and robust. We are very pleased by your recent > proposal to initiate a proceeding for the consideration of safeguards > to that end. > > In particular, we believe that your network neutrality proposal's key > principles of "nondiscrimination" and "transparency" are necessary > components of a pro-innovation public policy agenda for this nation. > This initiative is both timely and necessary, and we look forward to a > data-driven, on-the-record proceeding to consider all of the various > options. > > We understand that your proposal, while not even yet part of a public > proceeding, already is meeting with strong and vocal resistance from > some of the organizations that the American public depends upon for > broadband access to the Internet. As you know, the debate on this > topic has been lengthy, and many parties opposing the concept have > systematically mischaracterized the views of those who endorse and > support your position. > > We believe that the existing Internet access landscape in the U.S. > provides inadequate choices to discipline the market through > facilities-based competition alone. Your network neutrality proposals > will help protect U.S. Internet users' choices for and freedom to > access all available Internet services, worldwide, while still > providing for responsible network operation and management practices, > including appropriate privacy-preserving protections against denial of > service and other attacks. > > One persistent myth is that "network neutrality" somehow requires that > all packets be treated identically, that no prioritization or quality > of service is permitted under such a framework, and that network > neutrality would forbid charging users higher fees for faster speed > circuits. To the contrary, we believe such features are permitted > within a "network neutral" framework, so long they are not applied in > an anti-competitive fashion. > > We believe that the vast numbers of innovative Internet applications > over the last decade are a direct consequence of an open and freely > accessible Internet. Many now-successful companies have deployed their > services on the Internet without the need to negotiate special > arrangements with Internet Service Providers, and it's crucial that > future innovators have the same opportunity. We are advocates for > "permissionless innovation" that does not impede entrepreneurial > enterprise. > > We commend your initiative to protect and maintain the Internet's > unique openness, and support the FCC process for considering the > adoption of your proposed nondiscrimination and transparency > principles. > > Respectfully, > > Vinton G. Cerf, Internet Pioneer > Stephen D. Crocker, Internet Pioneer > David P. Reed, Internet Pioneer > Lauren Weinstein, Internet Pioneer > Daniel Lynch, Internet Pioneer > > > - - - > > Lauren Weinstein > [email protected] > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 > http://www.pfir.org/lauren > Co-Founder <http://www.pfir.org/lauren%0ACo-Founder>, PFIR > - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org > Co-Founder, NNSquad > - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org > Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition > for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org > Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com > Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein > > > -- Joe Uelk [email protected]
