Comments on: Herman Makes a Good Point about the Scope of Neutrality Regulations http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:38:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/comment-page-1/#comment-36966 Richard Bennett Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:55:00 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/#comment-36966 Pardon the grammatical errors in my comment. Here is what I meant to say: Is network neutrality the same thing as "the end-to-end principle?" I don't think so. As I understand it, a neutral network is simply a passive network that doesn't make any decisions about routing packets based on content or source address. If we replace this passive network with an active one that offers multiple service levels, it can still be up to the end points to select the service level for any given stream of packets. Hence this network is "end-to-end" but not "neutral". The notion of only worrying about monopolistic practices that threaten "the end-to-end principle" seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Pardon the grammatical errors in my comment. Here is what I meant to say:

Is network neutrality the same thing as “the end-to-end principle?” I don’t think so.

As I understand it, a neutral network is simply a passive network that doesn’t make any decisions about routing packets based on content or source address. If we replace this passive network with an active one that offers multiple service levels, it can still be up to the end points to select the service level for any given stream of packets. Hence this network is “end-to-end” but not “neutral”.

The notion of only worrying about monopolistic practices that threaten “the end-to-end principle” seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/comment-page-1/#comment-55843 Richard Bennett Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:55:00 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/#comment-55843 Pardon the grammatical errors in my comment. Here is what I meant to say:<br><br>Is network neutrality the same thing as "the end-to-end principle?" I don't think so.<br><br>As I understand it, a neutral network is simply a passive network that doesn't make any decisions about routing packets based on content or source address. If we replace this passive network with an active one that offers multiple service levels, it can still be up to the end points to select the service level for any given stream of packets. Hence this network is "end-to-end" but not "neutral".<br><br>The notion of only worrying about monopolistic practices that threaten "the end-to-end principle" seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Pardon the grammatical errors in my comment. Here is what I meant to say:

Is network neutrality the same thing as “the end-to-end principle?” I don’t think so.

As I understand it, a neutral network is simply a passive network that doesn’t make any decisions about routing packets based on content or source address. If we replace this passive network with an active one that offers multiple service levels, it can still be up to the end points to select the service level for any given stream of packets. Hence this network is “end-to-end” but not “neutral”.

The notion of only worrying about monopolistic practices that threaten “the end-to-end principle” seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/comment-page-1/#comment-36965 Richard Bennett Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:09:36 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/#comment-36965 The network neutrality the same thing as "the end-to-end principle?" I don't think so. As I understand it, network neutrality is simple a passive network that doesn't make any decisions about routing packets based on content or source address. If we replace this passive network with an active one that offers multiple service levels, it can still be up to the end points to select the service level for any given stream of packets. The notion of only worrying about monopolistic practices that threaten "the end-to-end principle" seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse. The network neutrality the same thing as “the end-to-end principle?” I don’t think so.

As I understand it, network neutrality is simple a passive network that doesn’t make any decisions about routing packets based on content or source address. If we replace this passive network with an active one that offers multiple service levels, it can still be up to the end points to select the service level for any given stream of packets.

The notion of only worrying about monopolistic practices that threaten “the end-to-end principle” seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/comment-page-1/#comment-55842 Richard Bennett Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:09:36 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/#comment-55842 The network neutrality the same thing as "the end-to-end principle?" I don't think so.<br><br>As I understand it, network neutrality is simple a passive network that doesn't make any decisions about routing packets based on content or source address. If we replace this passive network with an active one that offers multiple service levels, it can still be up to the end points to select the service level for any given stream of packets.<br><br>The notion of only worrying about monopolistic practices that threaten "the end-to-end principle" seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse. The network neutrality the same thing as “the end-to-end principle?” I don’t think so.

As I understand it, network neutrality is simple a passive network that doesn’t make any decisions about routing packets based on content or source address. If we replace this passive network with an active one that offers multiple service levels, it can still be up to the end points to select the service level for any given stream of packets.

The notion of only worrying about monopolistic practices that threaten “the end-to-end principle” seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/comment-page-1/#comment-36964 Jim Lippard Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:46:45 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/#comment-36964 I wholeheartedly agree. Susan Crawford, however, thinks that <a href="http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/1/14/2650385.html" rel="nofollow">drawing such distinctions is "dangerous,"</a> though she doesn't explain why. I wholeheartedly agree. Susan Crawford, however, thinks that drawing such distinctions is “dangerous,” though she doesn’t explain why.

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/comment-page-1/#comment-55841 Jim Lippard Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:46:45 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/#comment-55841 I wholeheartedly agree. Susan Crawford, however, thinks that <a href="http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/1/14/2650385.html" rel="nofollow">drawing such distinctions is "dangerous,"</a> though she doesn't explain why. I wholeheartedly agree. Susan Crawford, however, thinks that drawing such distinctions is “dangerous,” though she doesn’t explain why.

]]>