Re: "Network Neutrality" or "Open Internet"

["Fergie" <fergdawg () netzero net>]

This is one of my stronger areas. :-)

In general terms, remember that electrical or optical signalling
is _clocked_ into 'the network'.

Don't confuse this with packet communications, which -- for all
intents and purposes -- ride on tp of this, and is basically a
'ships in the night' service.

Given these two issues alaone, the concept of 'network inequity'
becomes one of (basically) 'Who's traffic gets degraded?' or more
appropriately, 'Who's traffic do I drop first (out of full router
queues) when my network gets congested?'

Does that make more sense?

- ferg

ps. http://www.wiley.com/legacy/compbooks/catalog/24358-2.htm

;-)

-- "Dude VanWinkle" <dudevanwinkle () gmail com> wrote:

I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around this one,

If you buy a T1 from AT&T, arent they supposed to provide 1.5 mbps to
you? If google buys an OC48 or a few thousand Dedicated Lambdas, arent
they supposed to get the bandwidth as well?

Wouldnt adding/removing QoS to the packets violate the ToS? Are they
still getting the B/W they paid for?

Also, is the degradation of services happening on the Client side, the
Provider side, or both?

Easily Confused,

-JP


--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg () netzero net or fergdawg () sbcglobal net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.