-
Website
http://techliberation.com/ -
Original page
http://techliberation.com/2007/01/31/herman-makes-a-good-point-about-the-scope-of-neutrality-regulations/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
MikeRT
184 comments · 6 points
-
eee_eff
800 comments · 8 points
-
mwendy
73 comments · 2 points
-
Ryan Radia
176 comments · 5 points
-
Richard Bennett
612 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
The Ugliness of Privacy Notices
4 days ago · 4 comments
-
Open Source is Not the Enemy
5 days ago · 3 comments
-
Broadband as a Human Right (and a short list of other things I am entitled to on your dime)
3 weeks ago · 18 comments
-
“Internet Freedom”: How Statists Corrupt Our Language
1 week ago · 7 comments
-
No, Seriously, U.S. Broadband Competition Sucks
3 weeks ago · 15 comments
-
The Ugliness of Privacy Notices
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.
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.