NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: Is network unneutrality necessarily bad?

The more critical question from my perspective is deliberate blocking or
degradation based on protocol or on the parties communicating. The internet
sewervcice should not discriminate based solely on protocol or the identity of
the correspondents. Differentiated service is fine if all classes requiring
this treatment have equal access to it. V

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Weaver" <nweaver@gmail.com>
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org <nnsquad@nnsquad.org>
Sent: Thu Nov 08 09:57:15 2007
Subject: [ NNSquad ]  Is network unneutrality necessarily bad?

Part of the problem is that I don't see all acts of network unneutral
behavior as necessarily bad.

For example, take VOIP or any other realtime application (eg, online
games).  These applications all share a property of fairly low data
rates but very high realtime needs.  So why should (if I'm willing to
pay) this traffic not receive better than best effort service.

Likewise, why shouldn't an ISP give Bittorrent and similar
bulk-transfer products worse-than-best-effort?  These applications are
obviously noninteractive, high data rate transfers, so why should my
SSH connection have to compete with my neighbor downloading a big DVD?

How does one draw the line between legitimate traffic shaping and
outright abuses (eg, FIN-flooding seeders, HTTP add-injection,
penalizing a competitor's VOIP service since the network operator is
also the telephone company)?
NNSquad mailing list information: