Re: why Senator Stevens is right on Net Neutrality

["Dude VanWinkle" <dudevanwinkle () gmail com>]

On 7/6/06, Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Dude VanWinkle wrote:
> > On 7/6/06, Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org> wrote:
> > > What you are missing, Dude, si that whatever his "position" is, he is our
> > > best advocate. He is pro Net Neutrality and against the teco's. What's not
> > > clear?
> > >
> >
> > It sounds like he is backing Telco's to me.
> >
> > eg:
> >
> > > > "The whole concept is [that] we should not go into this until someone
> > > > shows there is something that's been done that really is a violation of
> > > > that neutrality."
>
> First, you don't have to agree with all his points, second, hey, show him
> examples.
>
> He is right, we should not go and give telco's the right to filter us by
> services until they give an example of why this is good.

I guess all my confusion stems from the fact that I dont know whether
this bill is meant to  stop telco's from rate limiting or to grant
them the ability to rate limit us.

Sorry, like I said, its a little early, and I partied a little too
hard for World Cup (Viva La France! :-)

> > > > "We have a separate Department of Defense network now, do you know
> > > > why? Because they have to get their [information] delievered immediately,
> >
> > That doesnt sound like he is advocating the disabling of QoS
>
> I don't see anything wrong with the DoD using their own network. Heck,
> there is no reason for military issues to travel second to
> ecommerce. That's not the Internet.


Agreed, my problem was with his reasoning. He is arguing that the
reason the DoD has a network is due to congestion.

I thought that net congestion was one of the points the ISP's were
using to argue in favor of QoS.

I thought one of the arguments against Net Neutrality was "these video
stream'ers and VOIP'ers are slowing down your email, vote against net
neutrality so we can stop them from stealing your bandwidth"

Am I totally off base?


> What about his other comments? Such as the ones saying, hey.. they want to
> take money for what they already provide.
That was one statement that confused me when I thought he was arguing
in favor of telcos. It to me several minutes of narrow-minded thinking
to come up with why that was bad ;-)

Now that I am told he is in Favor of Neutrality, several other
statements seem odd

> >
> > -JP<the [still] easily confused>
> >
_______________________________________________
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.