DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! The Technology Liberation Front is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

The Technology Liberation Front

The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Jump to original thread »
Author

Herman Makes a Good Point about the Scope of Neutrality Regulations

Started by TLF · 10 months ago

3 comments

  • I wholeheartedly agree. Susan Crawford, however, thinks that drawing such distinctions is "dangerous," though she doesn't explain why.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Add New Comment

Comments are closed for this post.
Returning? Login