Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (42658)	4/8/2010 6:17:24 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

No its not so precise. For example to just give three concepts about it (and there are more) -- Definitions of network neutrality At its simplest network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.[9] Net neutrality advocates have established three principal definitions of network neutrality: Absolute non-discrimination Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu: "Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[2] According to Imprint Magazine, University of Michigan Law School professor Susan P. Crawford "believes that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for quality-of-service considerations."[10] Limited discrimination without QoS tiering United States lawmakers have introduced bills that would allow quality of service discrimination as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.[11] Limited discrimination and tiering This approach allows higher fees for QoS as long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts. According to Tim Berners-Lee: "If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality of service."[1] "[We] each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me."[12] en.wikipedia.org The most extreme version, of absolute non discrimination between packets, would not only not allow QoS measures, but would not discriminate between DoS pings and viruses attempting to replicate across the net, and legitimae net traffic. Few if any would actually support that, but it fits with the general terms of the concept. -------- A weak form of net neutrality, that isn't or at least primarily isn't about government coercion, would probably get my support. A very strong form probably wouldn't, neither would any large increase in government involvement to get a more moderate form. I like parts of the idea, but that doesn't mean the government should impose it on people.