[ih] history of net-NON-neutrality

[Ofer Inbar]

Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote:
>  That note got my attention too. I think the answer is to stop using 
> the term "neutrality" to describe networking policy preferences. It was 
[...]
> But if want to ban QoS, they're going to have much less support and very 
> strong opposition. If they want to regulate the sale of QoS (not ban it, 
> but regulate it), fine and dandy, our governments regulate all kinds of 
> things. But banning QoS is nonsense.

Nobody wants to ban QoS (well, maybe someone out there does, but
there's certainly no organized movement for it) and it has nothing
to do with net neutrality.  Very few net neutrality proponents know
what QoS is in the first place, and it's not at all what they're
thinking of.  This is a complete non-problem outside of technical
lists where people delve into all the possible misinterprations.

"net neutrality" is not a technical term, nor is it a technical issue.
It's a political issue, and it's about business practices.  It's too
well entrenched in the debate to be worth trying to change for no
clear benefit, and it's a reasonable term for the issue it describes.
Plenty of political issues have catchphrases that are grossly off
the mark or contain technical inaccuracies but people keep using them
and know what they mean; this one is not one of those, and is better
than most at conveying what it's about.  But the point is that it
doesn't matter what the words *could* mean - the issue is named and
we* know what it is and its advocates and opponents use that name.

* "we" = not necessarily people on this mailing list, especially
  outside the US, who might be unfamiliar with what is a current
  political issue in the US.

Now, sure, when the FCC or Congress draw up actual language to codify
some version of net neutrality, it's important to get technical
details right.  But that's an entirely separate matter from trying
to rename "net neutrality".  Renaming won't solve that problem.

Net Neutrality is the spirit of "common carrier", in less strict form.
Common Carrier never meant that you couldn't pay more to fill up more
train cars with your product, nor did it tell railroads not to reroute
trains or change switching processes to improve efficiency.  It only
forbade them from discriminating for or against particular customers,
or based on attributes of the stuff they were carrying that were not
relevant to carrying it (such as its size, weight, or hazard level).

This is a pretty simple concept, and it's mostly only opponents of it
who try to obfuscate it, or conflate it with things like QoS, in their
attempts to make it seem more troublesome.  Renaming wouldn't solve
that problem either - they will continue to obfuscate in the same ways.
  -- Cos