Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web - WSJ.com
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:46:29 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: John Levine <johnl () iecc com> Date: December 15, 2008 7:35:32 AM EST To: dave () farber netSubject: Re: [IP] Re: Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web - WSJ.com
Er, are you sure that isnt simply a peering agreement?
I always understood network neutrality to mean that a provider charges the same price to to everyone who buys the same service. If someone wants to buy a faster connection, that's fine, so long as the price is the same as what the provider charges itself. This issue originally came up when telcos were charging independent ISPs more for bare DSL circuits than the telco's captive ISP was charging consumers for DSL ISP service over those same circuits. Now that we have the plague of deep packet inspection, I'd extend net neutrality to mean that if two customers are paying the same, DPI does the same things to them. Sure, the name "net neutrality" has been hijacked by people who want it to mean different things, but it'd be ahistorical to pretend that people couldn't or can't pay for a faster connection. Regards,John Levine, johnl () iecc com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex- Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web - WSJ.com David Farber (Dec 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web - WSJ.com David Farber (Dec 15)
- Re: Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web - WSJ.com David Farber (Dec 15)
- Re: Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web - WSJ.com David Farber (Dec 15)