|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | Please feel free to post comments here.[[User:Joly|Joly]] 21:00, 19 February 2007 (PST) | | Please feel free to post comments here.[[User:Joly|Joly]] 21:00, 19 February 2007 (PST) |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==isoc policy statement==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This policy statement needs to be strengthened:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/network_neutrality.shtml
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The second definition listed at the top of the page needs
| |
| − | updating; it reflects one way the issue was presented early on.
| |
| − | There's a difference between treating similar applications alike,
| |
| − | and supporting diverse applications by the design of the
| |
| − | transport. Treating similar applications alike just as well
| |
| − | would tend to make the Internet platform no longer flexible and
| |
| − | generic, an actual medium for diverse applications. This is the
| |
| − | difference between the transport and the applications above.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The wikipedia pages make this point.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ISOC NY can clarify this with your statement to the FTC, and this
| |
| − | is a key insight you would bring to the FTC, who can't see the
| |
| − | issue correctly yet. Remember that flexibility is the key, and
| |
| − | we wouldn't have any reason to worry about the future of the
| |
| − | standards or the flexibility of the Internet -- or even have any
| |
| − | debate over "net neutrality" -- if the incumbents hadn't
| |
| − | expressed an intention to use their position to establish
| |
| − | practices that would make the transport non-generic.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Seth[http://lists.isoc-ny.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-February/000257.html]
| |
