Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Never Really Existed?
dido writes "In his most recent column, Robert X. Cringely observes that network neutrality may have never really existed at all. It appears that some, perhaps all, of the major broadband ISPs have been implementing tiered service levels for a long time. From the article: 'What turns out to be the case is that some ISPs have all along given priorities to different packet types. What AT&T, Comcast and the others were trying to do was to find a way to be paid for priority access — priority access that had long existed but hadn't yet been converted into a revenue stream.'" Cringely comes to this conclusion after being unable to get a fax line working. His assumption that the (Vonage) line's failure to support faxing is due to Comcast packet prioritizing is not really supported or proved. But his main point about the longstanding existence of service tiering will come as no surprise to this community.
Yours sincerely,
All the niggors.
I may own a flower shop, but that does not grant me the right to deny service to blacks
I'm confused. Could you rephrase in the form of a car analogy?
--
I'll try. To quote Henry Ford, you can have any colour car you like, as long as it's black.
Err
I am personally against the current form of net neutrality. I think that government intervetion is almost always bad. The ONLY regulations that should be passed:
1. All backbone providers must allow other providers to connect to them on a naked pipe.
2. All providers must use standard protocols*.
3. Providers may only throttle data/bandwidth based on protocol, not orgin/destination.
*I'd leave defining "standard" up to ICAAN, with these additional rules:
1. The protocol must be open - anyone can see how it works and get specs for it.
2. Usage or modification of the protocol must not be restricted by patents or copyright.
I believe anything more is harmful to the free market.
The government can't save you.