Subject: Re: On "Net Neutrality" and HR 5417
From: simo <>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:25:28 -0400

On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 20:54 -0400, L Jean Camp wrote:
> Is this the section you are talking about:
> The section:
> "(b) If a broadband network provider prioritizes or
> offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular
> type, it must prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service
> to all data of that type (regardless of the origin or owner-
> ship of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other
> consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality
> of service."


> I am surprised by your analysis. Could you please provide some pointers 
> that support your argument? Or perhaps we are reading different things.

IMO what Seth means is that this law potentially blocks any further
development of new protocols, and exp P2P protocols.

Let's say you invent a new protocol for a new interesting application,
and that requires you to use a new IP sub-protocol.

You are the first to provide such service, no ISP implement it, and so
ISPs can just drop your new packets in the waste-bin by de-prioritizing
such traffic so much to render it useless. They do not offer that
service so they are not bound to make it behave well.

This means they can essentially stop anything they do not offer, and any
P2P comes to mind immediately, as P2P is something that cannot be
provided by ISPs by nature.
And wonder what? A P2P VOIP system is something they would fear more
then any other service that is bound to a company.
They can always buy companies if they want, they cannot buy a true P2P

What these big companies (AT&T, etc..) want is a way to NOT loose all
the revenues that come from telephonic traffic. Today broadband is
available on cell phones too, if VOIP is not blocked soon, they will be
transformed in data-carriers and people will buy out flat rate data
services to run their phone calls. No more phone bills, means a LOT less
money to them.

Of course it is natural that any service/product/technology is surpassed
with time, just like the telegraph was, the problem is that they are
powerful enough today to threaten development for their own interest.