NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: [OT?] NN definition(s?)
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 09:13:13PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 19:10 -0500, The Anarcat wrote:
> > In a lot of anti-NN litterature I've seen, the "lack of a proper
> > definition" has always been a key attack point. For me, it's a moot
> > point: NN proponents have a fairly consistent definition, in my opinion.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Neutrality#Definitions_of_Network_Neutrality
> >
> > Can we move on now?
>
> The Wikipedia section you cite gives three different classes of
> definition for NN, which I recall distinctly because I wrote it. Three
> major classes is hardly "a fairly consistent definition," it's a rat's
> nest for policy makers.
Actually, I cited this example precisely because I think that the
definitions are consistent with one another.
> I had hoped that this group would bring some light to a debate that has
> so far been almost exclusively heat. So far, I don't see that happening,
> except insofar as Brett has tried (valiantly, in my estimation) to
> remind the group that ISPs aren't necessarily sitting on oceans of free
> bandwidth that they hoard in order to keep the troops in Iraq, the
> oceans overheating, and the dictators in power, etc.
Being close to that field, profesionnally, I also understand that
"bandwidth isn't free". However, the issue at hand is not for users to
get free bandwidth, but to dispose of it as they wish and pay a fair
price for it.
> If we understand neutrality as meaning the ability of the typical,
> non-abusive network user to access the sites and applications he wants
> within the constraints of the laws of physics and the state of network
> engineering, then we have to accept the fact that the infringement of
> this ability doesn't come exclusively from ISPs or monopolistic phone
> companies. Bandwidth hogs, spammers, worm artists, and other sources of
> noise also interfere with network access in this world of shared
> facilities and pooled bandwidth.
Indeed, but those aren't deliberatly devising that "noise" against
specific users. Spammers, for one, are being actively fought against and
indeed laws have been passed to regulate that behavior (with limited
success, arguably).
[small expose of a specific feature of Azareus]
> If others agree that this is an abuse of net neutrality, perhaps we can
> proceed to publicize it and have it corrected after a period of proper
> flogging and public shaming.
If I understood your example properly, the Azareus feature is disabled
by default and has to be turned on. Specifically, the feature is this:
"Outgoing packet type-of-service" and is documented there:
http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/AdvancedNetworkSettings
"Azureus leaves this unset by default, meaning the defaults for the
underlying OS are used"... as you mentionned. I guess I don't understand
the part where you jump to the conclusion that the traffic will
therefore be marked as "best effort". My understanding would rather be
that the traffic emanating from Azureus would be treated equally to the
other traffic.
How is that a problem?
A.
--
N'aimer qu'un seul est barbarie, car c'est au dÃtriment de tous les
autres. FÃt-ce l'amour de Dieu.
- Nietzsche, "Par delà le bien et le mal"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature