Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| reply to swhx7
Stop misusing "Network Neutrality"
Network Neutrality refers to ISPs double dipping on charging/extorting fees for both users paying for their connections and web sites paying for prioritization of traffic according to origination and destination. It does not refer to protocol-based QoS. It does not mean a flat, unmanaged, unQoS-ed Internet. By repeatedly and deliberately misusing this phrase, its importance is being weakened.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by Cabal  :Network Neutrality refers to ISPs double dipping on charging/extorting fees for both users paying for their connections and web sites paying for prioritization of traffic according to origination and destination. It does not refer to protocol-based QoS. It does not mean a flat, unmanaged, unQoS-ed Internet. By repeatedly and deliberately misusing this phrase, its importance is being weakened. Good point. But many commentators like to use the current "hot cause" and try to make it cover every little pet peeve they have about the internet. So they try to make "network neutrality" become the umbrella for the anarchy that they favor.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Cabal
1. It's true that impartial QoS is not considered a violation of network neutrality. However, if you read the articles you'd find that Comcast's excuse for packet-forging is precisely the fact that QoS doesn't work in the congested-node upstream situation with cable modems.
2. Your definitions are wrong. The double-dipping is one motivation for neutrality violations, but selective throttling itself can be an abusive practice regardless of whether the ISP tries to charge third parties for not having it imposed on them.
3. Comcast's practice would have been acceptable if it had been merely prioritizing other traffic over bittorrent, only when congestion required it. That's legitimate network management and consistent with neutrality, and it would have solved the problem. Instead Comcast totally prevented seeding to non-Comcast peers, regardless of the state of the network. This punishes innocents and prevents a legitimate use of the connection the customers are paying for. It's the discrimination by destination, and in excess of requirements that is out of bounds. |
|
