Hi WLD.
re: "It would seem to me that dedicating so much bandwidth to a specific niche use violates pretty much all definitions of the "net neutrality" gestalt....?"
Your question above elicits a very interesting point, which I also raised earlier today, elsewhere, concerning where network neutrality begins and ends. I maintained in that other discussion that the root of neutrality begins in asset ownership and works its way to compromising situations from there.
"At times we've discussed taking the network neutrality meme to its root and examining its elemental factors. From my perspective, at least, the root of neutrality begins at the point of asset ownership. The next step up the ladder of neutrality considerations extends into the interconnection terms and conditions, as spelled out in service agreements between the end user for interconnecting with other entities, be they neighbors, cooperatives, or commercial service providers, and then it degrades from there..."
Where does the "network", when used in the context of "network neutrality", begin and end? Surely it's not merely applicable to autonomous system backbones and last mile providers' access networks, where it is most closely associated with wireline backbone systems and ISP domains, although one would think from reading all of the literature on the subject that that's where it belongs. Both wireline and wireless realms, both licensed and unlicensed, also comprise parts of internetworking. Sometimes they fall in line with Internet IETF RFCs, and sometimes not. Good question.
Would anyone care to add to this?
FAC
------ |
