1. Congress will screw it up. If techies can't agree on a definition
> of net neutrality, it's highly unlikely that a bunch of pols
> understand the issue. Let's say Congress does mandate net
> neutrality. Great news, right? Not so fast. Once net neutrality is
> mandated, the laws of unintended consequences kick in. Suddenly, we're
> locked into a Net architecture (the current one that's decades
> old). Suddenly, there are no fast lanes allowed.
All good points.
3. All traffic isn't created equal. An e-mail doesn't have the same
> service requirements as a VOIP call. An X-ray of a heart patient
> should have priority over a Britney Spears video. Corporate networks
> manage traffic that way, and at some point there has to be some
> intelligence added to public Internet infrastructure between the end
> points. Net neutrality requirements mean all traffic is created
> equal. You can debate over who makes the call over what traffic gets
> priority, but to pretend all traffic is equal doesn't hold up.
Excellent point.
There's been some anti-telecom company ads on TV which I find misleading.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, they are good points, Lisa; but when it comes around to misleading people, Southwestern Bell, using their latest alias, AT&T is one of the biggest misleaders. I have pretty much stsyed neutral on the 'net neutrality' debate, but I have heard telco claiming 'nothing will change' if they are put in charge of it all; I just cannot imagine _nothing_ will change, and I suspect the changes will not be good for most netters. PAT]