NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
NNSquad Home Page
[ 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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.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: http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad