| Matthew Rosewarne on 18 Oct 2007 23:49:41 -0000 |
|
On Wednesday 17 October 2007, zuzu wrote: > He presents other arguments, but the gist of his criticism is that the > paper is fine (Isenberg used to work at AT&T and knows of the some > people involved in the research) but simply leaves out important > considerations. It cannot, then, be used to make the claim that a > non-neutral Net is a cheaper Net. The problem with this paper is that the managed networks (phone, cable, or even heavily filtered internet) simply cannot do what the internet does. When managing a traffic on a network, one must understand what all that traffic is, measure it and qualify it. The internet is not for any specific purpose, but is a general-purpose network. It's just not very efficient at the kind of task usually performed by TV broadcast or, in many cases, copper phone lines. Trying to "optimise" the internet for a specific purpose is counter-productive, as it interferes with other uses of the network. This would make it far more difficult to innovate with new protocols and techniques, as they would all have to deal with the various filters and shapers that are in their way. The internet is simply best when nobody tries to turn it into something it isn't. Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|