The "Net Neutrality War" comes to Canada.

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 05:01:55PM -0500, Aaron Vegh wrote:
> I think the scary thought here is the slippery slope argument. If ISPs
> take active charge of various providers' traffic, who's to say they
> won't hold some sites hostage for cash? How could you ever know
> backroom deals weren't happening? Fact is, once it becomes okay for
> ISPs to run rampant with their filters, freedom will be gone.

Well they are already doing it, except only to supposedly save
themselves some bandwidth, not to charge extra money.  I have no problem
with increasing priority of some traffic.  What I do have a problem with
is targeting specific traffic for artificially lowered throughput (not
limited by available bandwidth, but by some active slowdown, aka what
rogers does to bittorrent and other such systems).  Saying that VoIP
traffic should have higher priority sounds good to me, as long as the
stuff you are not increasing priority is treated equally.  So far it
seems most net neutrality talks wants to ensure that no prioritization
of any kind can be done.  I am all for not allowing artificial choking
of traffic, but I am also for allowing prioritizing certain types of
traffic that really have a need for fast delivery.

--
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists