>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:22 2024
Received: by 10.54.63.12 with SMTP id l12mr95532wra;
Mon, 29 May 2006 18:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <shad..._at_sh1.ath.cx>
Received: from s091-n154.tele2.cz (s091-n154.tele2.cz [213.246.91.154])
by mx.googlegroups.com with ESMTP id v11si1346609cwb.2006.05.29.18.39.57;
Mon, 29 May 2006 18:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (googlegroups.com: 213.246.91.154 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of shad..._at_sh1.ath.cx)
Received: (qmail 9415 invoked by uid 0); 30 May 2006 03:39:55 +0200
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 03:39:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Shaddack <tsc..._at_shaddack.mauriceward.com>
To: TSCM-L2006_at_googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] Re: OFF TOPIC - World Wide Web
Message-ID: <0605300339250.-1149117932_at_somehost.domainz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 29 May 2006, kondrak wrote:
> Net neutrality is a very misunderstood topic. A lot of leftist
> blow-holes like Moveon.org are against it, they do not understand the
> topic, or more likely, they have some deep-seated advantage if
> neutrality goes away.
There must be some misunderstanding. MoveOn.org specifically is one of the
subjects backing the savetheinternet.com initiative, which is IN FAVOR of
net neutrality. (I specifically looked that up. The thought that MoveOn
could back something that would put them into large competitive
disadvantage against public relations leviathan of the Ketchum Inc.
class, seemed illogical, and turned out so.)
There is, however, another organization: Hands Off the Internet aka
handsoffthenet.net - an astroturf public relations front group, opposed to
the idea of neutral Net. Unsurprisingly, it is paid for by telcos. See
more detailed assessment here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hands_Off_the_Internet
> The original net IS neutral, has been, and is now.
Within some technological limits, but essentially yes.
> The telcos want to maximize profits by giving preferential treatment
> to those that bribe them (pay higher fees).
Sometimes it is needed to prioritize. However, the IP RFCs (namely RFC
791) already handle this issue well. The Type-of-Service field in the IP
packet header indicates the desired throughput/delay/reliability. Respect
for these flags could be a good addition to the net-neutrality requirement
set. Preferential treatment to packets should be based on the
RFC-specified TOS header field and not on some arbitrary set of rules
designed to maximize profits.
> Net neutrality is a good thing, and should be supported.
Very true. But how?
In some specific cases, workarounds are possible. Some ISPs
(coughComcastcough) already filter IPSec packets for accounts that are not
business-grade (and therefore much more expensive), in an attempt to
request additional payments for use of VPNs. A technical solution luckily
exists here, as eg. OpenVPN (see openvpn.org), which deploys VPN over UDP
or TCP connection, as desired. OpenVPN in tap mode can even be used to
tunnel IPX for legacy Novell Netware networks.
But that class of solutions is not suitable for all classes of problems...
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:22 CST