Comments on: Neutrality for thee, but not for me

By: neutrality - StartTags.com

neutrality - StartTags.com — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:53:03 +0000

[...] controversial point, then we can decide for ourselves, and (relative) neutrality is achieved. …Neutrality for thee, but not for me Technology Liberation FrontIn Monday's Wall Street Journal, I address the once-again raging topic of net neutrality regulation [...]

By: My Net Neutrality Debate with Public Knowledge — Technology Liberation Front

My Net Neutrality Debate with Public Knowledge — Technology Liberation Front — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:28:35 +0000

[...] limited to a few ‘gatekeepers.’” We’re already seeing this with fights over application neutrality and device neutrality, and calls for search neutrality are [...]

By: dm

dm — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:15:14 +0000

I'd say you can't really call it a "phone" if there are some numbers it won't call. And I'm not sure you should be able to market it as a phone, if that is the case (unless it's easy to switch among phone providers, I suppose --- onion routing for phone calls).

All without net neutrality regulation.

...But with actual net neutrality.

A new “Fifth Principle,” if codified, could prohibit “discrimination” not just among applications and services but even at the level of data packets traversing the Net.

You have it backwards. This putative fifth principle would merely prohibit discrimination at the level of data packets traversing the Net, with the (beneficial) effect of treating applications and services similarly.

You're quite correct that it should allow traffic shaping (currently done largely by dropping packets at random), Quality of Service guarantees (indeed, the desire for QoS guarantees is partly where net non-neutrality comes in).

I'd like a citation linking QoS technologies to cybersecurity, please. I'm puzzled which technologies you mean.

And finally, what aspect of net neutrality prohibits offering tiered-pricing for different aggregate throughput service levels to endpoint customers? It's all about neutrally handling packets, no matter their source or destination --- treating the way the customers use their bandwidth neutrally. As pointed out here, Verizon's endorsement of "metered broadband should allay net neutrality concerns".

By: mwendy

mwendy — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:23 +0000

Agreed. Look, I'd prefer that if we're going to see Change here – if Congress wants to apply the copper Title II regime to Broadband – then have the guts to do so and legislate accordingly, recorded votes and all. The least desirable action would be to overturn Computer III via a slippery NPRM (though I'm one that does believe that the FCC has the organic authority to do so if they go through proper APA process).

Bottom line – the market ain't broke. So, don't go fixing it, FCC.

By: dm

dm — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:15:14 +0000

By: mwendy

mwendy — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:00:23 +0000

Agreed. Look, I'd prefer that if we going to see Change here – if Congress wants to apply the copper Title II regime to Broadband – then have the guts to do so and legislate accordingly, recorded votes and all. The least desirable action would be to overturn Computer III via a slippery NPRM (though I'm one that does believe that the FCC has the organic authority to do so if they go through proper APA process).

Bottom line – the market ain't broke. So, don't go fixing it, FCC.