The "Net Neutrality War" comes to Canada.

[Michael MacLeod]

> 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.

The problem with this is that as soon as they upgrade their network
again, they'll keep the 'status quo' speeds the same as with the
previous incarnation of their network. So, within two years we'll see
that suddenly it really is necessary to purchase extra QoS treatment
or be relegated to a network that is obsolete. This is where the
danger lies.
--
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