[governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality

[Roland Perry]

In message <f65fb55e1001051231y4c3f6ea9nb54334cea9d13c8 at mail.gmail.com>, 
at 15:31:50 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> writes

>Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents
>Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web
>content based on its source, ownership or destination.

Isn't it also to do with discriminating traffic depending on whether 
you've been paid to give a better QoS to one kind of traffic over 
another?

And don't some IPSs deliberately give priority to VoIP traffic - and if 
true, is that something to be frowned upon?

Edge caching of some content compared to others might also be regarded 
as giving it "unfair" priority (why don't they edge-cache all traffic), 
but I hardly think that banning edge-caching is desirable.

And most obviously, they speed up or slow down traffic depending on 
whether the subscriber has a 1Mbit, 2Mbit etc tail from his local POP, 
simply because of the capacity of that tail (to "its destination", the 
subscriber).

ps I'm not saying that some sort of "Net Neutrality" in the core is a 
good or bad thing, just that definitions need to be very carefully 
written.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance