3 ms·

>We find this principle to be self evident, that all internet traffic is to be treated as equal. That is it. No complex case law, no little print, no arcane law

>We find this principle to be self evident, that all internet traffic is to be treated as equal. That is it. No complex case law, no little print, no arcane law language. What about botnets? worms? DOS attacks?

panacea 16y ago
First amendment... "All user requested internet traffic is to be treated as equal"
- arebop 16y ago
  careful: does that mean your ISP can prohibit you from running servers?
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    As someone mentioned in another thread you would need to invest in a server thus actually increasing the overall capacity, rather than artificially increasing it or decreasing it. I do not know much about servers, but as I understand it Google runs a server and they doing so I do not think affects the traffic of my website. If however Google running a server would mean that my website would run more slowly, except for perhaps the distinction that it adds real capacity, I do not see how that is more different than paying the ISP to prioritize your traffic. Though I might need some enlightening.
temphn 16y ago
or VOIP, ER imaging data, realtime video... Also, Google has its own fiber which carries only Google packets. Not exactly net neutral there. And Google's control over site ranking in search results affects traffic prioritization on just as large and deterministic a scale as AT&T's hypothetical packet ranking. The issue is way more complicated than people realize.
- mattmillr 16y ago
  Google's fiber carrying only Google packets isn't the Internet, it's a Google network. If your company puts in a dedicated line between two offices or data centers, should we declare it neutral too?
  - gojomo 16y ago
    If Google and Verizon jointly pay for a high-speed 'dedicated line' between YouTube and Verizon broadband customers, and only YouTube traffic goes over that line, is that the Internet or not? Should it be illegal? In a networked economy sometimes coordination between different companies is deeper than two offices of the same company. Why should a company be allowed to have dedicated lines between its own arms, and not to important partners?
    - Ardit20 16y ago
      Yup, it should be illegal if other traffic suffers as a result of it.
CamperBob 16y ago
Those, too. They are problems to be dealt with at other layers of the OSI stack, the ones above "Transport."
- moultano 16y ago
  Are you saying that if some ISP's network is grinding to a halt under the weight of a DOS attack or a worm, they should be legally prohibited from doing anything about it? Unless we're using different terminology, Only the endpoints would be allowed to do anything about this under your proposal.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    For deliberate DOS attacks, sure... I think the law could make exceptions for dealing with deliberate vandalism. But worms and the like are not the ISP's problem, unless they harm the network itself and affect users who wouldn't otherwise be vulnerable to them.
    - jerf 16y ago
      Hello camel nose! Once you agree that total equality isn't actually possibly, we are now arguing about exactly which non-neutral policy to apply. Very similar to the anecdotal story about Winston Churchill that ends with "Now we are haggling about the price."
      - CamperBob 16y ago
        (Shrug) If I vandalize a road sign, the highway department has the right to close the lane, replace the sign, and prosecute me for the act. They do not, however, get to sell the highway to a conglomerate that also owns a trucking company who will be charged lower tolls for driving on it. That's all 'net neutrality' means, or should mean.
        moultano 16y ago
        That seems pretty similar to the language this proposal uses: A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from-- (1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice; (2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and (3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service

panacea 16y ago

First amendment... "All user requested internet traffic is to be treated as equal"

arebop 16y ago
careful: does that mean your ISP can prohibit you from running servers?
- Ardit20 16y ago
  As someone mentioned in another thread you would need to invest in a server thus actually increasing the overall capacity, rather than artificially increasing it or decreasing it. I do not know much about servers, but as I understand it Google runs a server and they doing so I do not think affects the traffic of my website. If however Google running a server would mean that my website would run more slowly, except for perhaps the distinction that it adds real capacity, I do not see how that is more different than paying the ISP to prioritize your traffic. Though I might need some enlightening.

temphn 16y ago

or VOIP, ER imaging data, realtime video... Also, Google has its own fiber which carries only Google packets. Not exactly net neutral there. And Google's control over site ranking in search results affects traffic prioritization on just as large and deterministic a scale as AT&T's hypothetical packet ranking. The issue is way more complicated than people realize.

mattmillr 16y ago
Google's fiber carrying only Google packets isn't the Internet, it's a Google network. If your company puts in a dedicated line between two offices or data centers, should we declare it neutral too?
- gojomo 16y ago
  If Google and Verizon jointly pay for a high-speed 'dedicated line' between YouTube and Verizon broadband customers, and only YouTube traffic goes over that line, is that the Internet or not? Should it be illegal? In a networked economy sometimes coordination between different companies is deeper than two offices of the same company. Why should a company be allowed to have dedicated lines between its own arms, and not to important partners?
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    Yup, it should be illegal if other traffic suffers as a result of it.

CamperBob 16y ago

Those, too. They are problems to be dealt with at other layers of the OSI stack, the ones above "Transport."

moultano 16y ago
Are you saying that if some ISP's network is grinding to a halt under the weight of a DOS attack or a worm, they should be legally prohibited from doing anything about it? Unless we're using different terminology, Only the endpoints would be allowed to do anything about this under your proposal.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  For deliberate DOS attacks, sure... I think the law could make exceptions for dealing with deliberate vandalism. But worms and the like are not the ISP's problem, unless they harm the network itself and affect users who wouldn't otherwise be vulnerable to them.
  - jerf 16y ago
    Hello camel nose! Once you agree that total equality isn't actually possibly, we are now arguing about exactly which non-neutral policy to apply. Very similar to the anecdotal story about Winston Churchill that ends with "Now we are haggling about the price."
    - CamperBob 16y ago
      (Shrug) If I vandalize a road sign, the highway department has the right to close the lane, replace the sign, and prosecute me for the act. They do not, however, get to sell the highway to a conglomerate that also owns a trucking company who will be charged lower tolls for driving on it. That's all 'net neutrality' means, or should mean.
      - moultano 16y ago
        That seems pretty similar to the language this proposal uses: A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from-- (1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice; (2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and (3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service