[Arch-econ] Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is being quoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality bill

thank you Vint.

folks please note Vint’s remarks on common carriage. This stuff gets very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip of my tongue by any means. Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein, Andrew Odlyzko, David Isenberg and others in a discussion of this about 3 weeks ago.

Please note also Vint’s remark:

If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of network neutrality.

I have NOT been reading this bill carefully myself
dangerous i know. BUT if i understand it correctly this is precisely what this bill would allow and this is NOT I think what any of us want. For whatever my opinion is worth I hope you all will oppose this loud and clear.

Gordon, from what I read the "interfere" part was specifically called out in the Bill...

I have probably missed some of the "gotcha's". Do you have the sections where BITS providers will be allowed to interfere/inspect? The inspect part does not appear to be referenced.

Here is the section I am talking about...


(a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.�Subject to subsection2
(b), each BITS provider has the duty�3
(1) not to block, impair, or interfere with the4
offering of, access to, or the use of any lawful con-5
tent, application, or service provided over the Inter-6

--end snip----

Blaine: This is about all I can offer under the circumstances. It is from page 45 of my nov-dec issue published about sept 30.

you do ask a Reasonable question.

Would packet classification and per-hop queuing of different DSCP classes
be considered "interference" in this world? What if a VOIP provider
didn't want to pay for its packets to go in an EF queue, so the network
processed the packets in the normal queue, is that a violation of your