"Net neutrality" a hot topic again these days. Plus ça change, plus ça reste pareil. Given the amount of confusion out there it seems like it won't be the last time.
When people say "neutrality" they could mean any combination of:
1) dominant access or backbone providers should not discriminate between customers, they should offer a similar prices to any buyer
2) all / most / many networks must exchange traffic free of charge with each other
3) all traffic must be treated the same regardless of application
4) all end users must pay a flat price for unlimited usage
My view, as regular readers... < crickets > ... can guess, is that 1) is the only good version. 2) I've written quite a bit about before, and I still think it's wrong, but thankfully 2) is rapidly joining 3) which has been obsolete for years. 4) is fine when feasible but demanding it be a requirement of all forms of access is just silly.
But 1) is really important! I hope that somehow emerges as the dominant focus this time but I'm not holding my breath.
For example, in the US right now there's a real danger with Comcast: local access monopoly x continental scale + vertical integration with content. Huge issue. This is all about 1), but the general public thinks the issue is 4), which means "net neutrality" will be defeated as irrational whining.
No comments:
Post a Comment