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: Comments on NNSquad Purpose
- To: Brett Glass <email@example.com>
- Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose
- From: "David P. Reed" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:12:08 -0500
- Cc: email@example.com, Robb Topolski <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Brett - please re-read the text on the home page. The NNSquad has
clearly chosen NOT to define Network Neutrality. That's a policy
question. You debate that vigorously in other fora.
This is about detecting, measuring, and sharing information about
interference by ISPs with traffic between users.
If you choose to believe that such interference has a "good" purpose,
feel free to argue that case. Just don't impose your will on this
list. You can even feel free to criticize this list for not defining
the term. I will even debate you about that, both here and elsewhere.
Nonetheless, nothing but good can be achieved by empower users to see
actually what ISPs are doing "for them" by inject RST packets,
throttling traffic presumed to be "unimportant", or calling users
"bandwidth hogs" in press releases or defensive emails. The users can
make up their own minds about policy.
I and the others who founded NNSquad do not want to use this forum as a
vehicle for imposing our policy desires or outcomes. Other fora are
more appropriate for that.
PS: I find it telling (others may as well) that you think that my note
which mentioned you only in the form of addressing you in the greeting
line is somehow an attack on you personally. Get over it.
Brett Glass wrote:
At 06:26 PM 11/8/2007, David P. Reed wrote:
This list and NNSquad's purpose is not about defining "network
neutrality", nor is it required to.
Dave, please keep your personal grudges (you seem to have one HECK of
a chip on your shoulder about Yours Truly) off list.
The fact is that there is no point in having a mailing list about
"network neutrality" if what is being discussed has not been defined.
There is a terrible "blind men and the elephant" problem here, and the
very first order of business should be to clear it up. It is vitally
important to craft a mutually agreeable definition. And because a
definition names what is defined and LIMITS it, we will avoid the
problem of having anything that anyone wants of an ISP -- no matter
how unreasonable or unrelated -- lumped into the vague cause of