[Cialug] OT: Deep packet inspection meets 'Net neutrality, CALEA

[Todd Walton]

On 7/27/07, Brandon Griffis <brandongriffis at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is always how it ends up when things are left to "the market".  The biggest businesses
> take over and eliminate the competition and then charge monopoly prices.

No kidding.  I used to love to go to Target and Kmart before Wal-Mart
killed them.  And now look at the prices at Wal-Mart!

Utilities on the other hand...  Because government has naturally
limited rollout of cable and phone networks based on rights of way,
regulatory fees, and public need (there's already one fine cable in
that ground, we don't need another!), we have much better service
there.  It's a *good* thing that government is protecting me from too
much choice in this area.

> It's the natural end result of capitalism, and it's what government is SUPPOSED to be
> protecting us from.

> However, QoS is a reality and a necessity.

Agreed.

> The real answer is to regulate it to the extent that "types" of service can be prioritized, but not
> one provider over another.

So what type is Yahoo?  Is it a search engine or is it a news site or
is it a portal?  Or do you mean protocols?  Is downloading ISOs by
HTTP different than by FTP?  Is it okay for an ISP to downgrade
BitTorrent traffic?  What if it's carrying a Linux ISO?

And now... here's the crucial step...  Must the answer you give to
these questions be The One Answer for everyone?  What advantage is
there to that?

> So you want to prioritize voip?  Fine.  But both your packets and your competitors packets
> have to be given the same priority.  Which would be a greater priority than let's say smtp or
> http.

I don't see what's wrong with the good old fashioned contract.

-todd