[ih] history of net-NON-neutrality

[Miles Fidelman]

Richard Bennett 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 coined by a law professor with a limited understanding of 
> networking (Tim Wu, once worked for a router company in a marketing 
> role before law school) and it confuses people to no end. I think the 
> net neutrality people want to ban vertical partnerships between 
> network operators and content concerns; if that's the case, they can 
> just say so and get a sympathetic ear. Vertical partnerships on 
> networks are pretty toxic in political circles.  So that's a winning 
> cause.
>
> On 9/15/2010 1:16 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> I am trying to get people to distinguish between "service neutrality" 
>> which pertains to protocols, versus "participant neutrality" which 
>> pertains to actors including users, organization and hosts.
Of course, if people would use good, old-fashioned terms - with a 
history - we wouldn't be in this mess.  I'm speaking, of course, of 
"common carriage" (or "public carrier" in Europe) - a well understood 
legal term that goes back the days of horse-drawn carriages and railroads.

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In<fnord>  practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra