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...
SEC. 104. ACCESS TO BITS.
(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
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