[ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose

["Vint Cerf" <vint@google.com>]

I generally agree with the idea that one seeks non-discrimination among
application serviced providers. One does need to allow for abusive users of
course. However the methods used in the comcast example seem poorly-fitted to
the objective to fairly share uplink capacity. V

----- Original Message -----
From: nnsquad-bounces+vint=google.com@nnsquad.org <nnsquad-bounces+vint=google.com@nnsquad.org>
To: Robb Topolski <robb@funchords.com>; nnsquad@nnsquad.org <nnsquad@nnsquad.org>
Sent: Thu Nov 08 07:34:17 2007
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose

At 11:48 PM 11/7/2007, Robb Topolski wrote:
 
>While I agree that Net Neutrality has been sometimes described as
>preventing the situation of paying extra for higher performance of
>favored applications, it is not an apt description.
>
>Using the Comcast P2P interference as an example, in this case,
>Comcast has degraded the performance of a non-favored application.

Or, from Comcast's point of view, it is preventing network abuse and
stopping customers from violating the terms of their contracts.

By the way, it seems to me that the first order of business on this
list should be to define "network neutrality." I see network neutrality
as remaining neutral with regard to content providers, but not
necessarily with regard to applications. (There are good technical
reasons to do things like prioritize VoIP packets, for example.)

--Brett Glass

_______________________________________________
NNSquad mailing list information:
http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad