[pp.int.general] how do you feel about net neutrality?

[Helmut Pozimski]

Am Freitag, 5. September 2008 14:28:33 schrieb David Arcos:
> > I've just stumbled upon this article, that raises a number of
> > objections *against* the principle of Internet neutrality (i.e.
> > non-filtered communications); I'd like to know how you guys feel about
> > it.
> >
> > http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/swanson7.html
>
> Didn't read the article, so I'll just comment on your points.
>
> Basically, his points are:
> > - most of the Internet traffic nowadays are spams and P2P exchanges
> >
> > - filtering data is good to guarantee that real-time communications
> > (VoIP, telemedicine, gaming etc) are given a low-latency priority over
> > non-critical communications (e.g. BitTorrent)
And who decides which protocol is critical? Each ISP for himself? The 
Government? Who guarantees that one ISP for example is giving VoIP a low 
priority because he wants to sell his own services that run on high priority 
ports? Or what would you say if your provider just blocked Bittorrent just 
because someone in the management thinks p2p-traffic might become dangerous 
to their QoS one day?
> This is QoS and it's "good", it discriminates different protocols.
And that violates net neutrality in my opinion. In an open network like the 
internet there shouldn't be any discrimination at all. Every user has the 
same right to get his data through no matter which protocol he is using. 
> QoS should not be confused with "net-neutrality", it's a totally different
> concept.
Yes, but it violates net neutrality so it shouldn't be allowed to continue.
> Examples:
> - QoS gives priority to VOIP, and takes priority from ftp, and blocks
> Blaster connections with a firewall
That is something you can do at your home router. I am doing this for example 
because the bandwith is really limited and I want to be able to phone someone 
while downloading something through bittorrent. But the ISPs should definitly 
not be allowed to make such choices for me.
> - no-net-neutrality would give priority to company_A.com website, and take
> out priority from company_B.com. And blocks website3.com.

> Again, QoS vs net neutrality.
> Don't never allow them to confuse you with this terms. QoS is necessary and
> has always been done.
Where has it been done to the internet? I can only find some research projects 
and drafts. I am sure that it isn't being done in Germany at the moment and I 
believe everyon trying to do this would face serious resistance from all over 
the country.
 > - "The internet is not a public utility, nor should it be treated as
> > such."

> >  - how do we, as a non-right-or-left party, deal with such issues?
>
> net neutrality is a civil rights thing, I think we all deal with that
> issues.
>
>   - Shall we, for instance, support one of the two USA candidates on this?
>
>
> That would be left/right
Indeed and I don't think that we should support either of these candidates 
since choosing one is just choosing the lesser evil.

regards
Helmut
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20080905/7928dca0/attachment-0001.pgp