NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 00:51 -0800, Phil Karn wrote:
> I think it needs to be made clear that the issue is not prioritizing
> some traffic at the expense of others. We definitely need that; the guy
> who says Road Runner is degrading his web surfing because he runs Bit
> Torrent is a perfect example of the need for QoS. The issue, of course,
> is *who gets to decide* which traffic is more or less important on a
> user's own link.
This question, and the broader question of how to define network
neutrality, are undoubtedly difficult.
Anyone interested in the problem should read the proposed Snowe-Dorgan
network neutrality legislation that's kicking around Congress:
http://freepress.net/congress/bills/dorgan_snowe_110th.pdf
It's quite complicated and subtle, but it seems to fit together well and
it isn't clear that there would be simpler rules that achieve what we
want.
In particular, the rule propose for prioritisation is this:
9 ``(5) only prioritize content, applications, or
10 services accessed by a user that is made available via
11 the Internet within the network of such broadband
12 service provider based on the type of content, appli-
13 cations, or services and the level of service purchased
14 by the user, without charge for such prioritization;
15 and
so ISPs would be allowed to prioritise VOIP over HTTP over BitTorrent,
but it isn't clear whether they could prioritise some kinds of VOIP over
others: is encrypted VOIP a different type of service to unencrypted
VOIP?
Note that Section 12 a (5) which I quoted above doesn't allow jamming or
interference with any protocol (that is prohibited, except for copyright
enforcement, by another section). Also note that other parts of the
Bill specifically prohibit tricks that allow ISPs to prioritise their
own or affiliated services over the competition.
--
Peter Eckersley pde@eff.org
Staff Technologist Tel +1 415 436 9333 x131
Electronic Frontier Foundation Fax +1 415 436 9993