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: Moving the discussion onward ...

I don't see the manifest os a deceleration of war against anything.
The thing you realize is that most people here are not completely
against an ISP employing NAT,QoS,Policy Routing, Traffic Shaping,
whatever it is you are referring to as antihogging mechanisims, or web
page caching or accleration.  What most people here are against is an
isp employing any of the above tactics with out clearly stating what
mechanisms are employed and how they are employed.


On Nov 12, 2007 6:00 PM, Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com> wrote:
> At 11:29 AM 11/12/2007, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> >And publication of our findings: I am for our use of Net structure
> >discovery and measurement tools.  I am also for publication of
> >results.  But such publicity cannot win the war, without a formal
> >declaration of what is at stake.  See:
> >
> >http://www.dpsproject.com
> The manifesto at that page (or, actually, one click away from it) is, indeed, a declaration of war -- not only against small ISPs such as myself but also against innovation and against the consumers for whose benefit we are deploying better technology. It attempts to enforce a legal definition of "Internet access" which is in fact only one of the many ways in which Internet access can be provided. For example, among other things it prohibits:
> * Network address translation (NAT), which is vital not only for our users' safety but to the economical operation of our network;
> * QoS for VoIP and other quasi-real time applications;
> * Policy routing;
> * Traffic shaping;
> * Anti-hogging mechanisms; and even
> * Web page caching and acceleration.
> What's worse, it is deceptive in that it claims that these arbitary requirements represent a "settled understanding" of the meaning of the term "Internet access," when in fact this is simply not true at all.
> In the document, the author comes across almost like a spoiled child, wanting things his way and only his way. It's as if someone who liked only vanilla ice cream attempted to have a law passed which said that any ice cream of a different flavor could not be sold as "ice cream."
> Sorry, but we sell many flavors, and they're all Internet access.
> --Brett Glass, LARIAT.NET