Comments on: Plan for Better Internet Unveiled at Memphis Bash http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/01/12/savetheinternetcom-unveils-plan-for-better-internet-at-memphis-bash/ Tracking the battle over Network Neutrality Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:08:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Head-On Radio Network » Blog Archive » The Internet Freedom Declaration http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/01/12/savetheinternetcom-unveils-plan-for-better-internet-at-memphis-bash/#comment-40701 Head-On Radio Network » Blog Archive » The Internet Freedom Declaration Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:06:12 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/01/12/savetheinternetcom-unveils-plan-for-better-internet-at-memphis-bash/#comment-40701 [...] From Save The Internet: Last week in Memphis, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition unveiled the “Internet Freedom Declaration of 2007,” our plan to make a faster, more open and accessible Internet for all Americans. [...] […] From Save The Internet: Last week in Memphis, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition unveiled the “Internet Freedom Declaration of 2007,” our plan to make a faster, more open and accessible Internet for all Americans. […]

]]> By: criticny http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/01/12/savetheinternetcom-unveils-plan-for-better-internet-at-memphis-bash/#comment-40587 criticny Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:10:41 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/01/12/savetheinternetcom-unveils-plan-for-better-internet-at-memphis-bash/#comment-40587 I'm curious . . . when the declaration says, "All lawful Web sites, devices, applications and services should have unfettered access to open Internet networks" it suggests a distinction between "open Internet networks" and "the Internet." I assume this merely protects the rights of private (non-interconnecting??) networks to establish in-network rules that break such unfettered access, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. However, taken strictly, the claim might also be understood to prohibit the use of QoS to privilege VoIP or IPTV traffic (i.e. voice or video services) on "open" (interconnecting??) Internet networks; something I'd wholeheartedly support but which seems at odds with the notion of "network neutrality" as promoted in the the new Dorgan-Snowe bill and advocated for on this site by Wu et al. Am I the only one who's a little perplexed? I’m curious . . . when the declaration says, “All lawful Web sites, devices, applications and services should have unfettered access to open Internet networks” it suggests a distinction between “open Internet networks” and “the Internet.” I assume this merely protects the rights of private (non-interconnecting??) networks to establish in-network rules that break such unfettered access, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. However, taken strictly, the claim might also be understood to prohibit the use of QoS to privilege VoIP or IPTV traffic (i.e. voice or video services) on “open” (interconnecting??) Internet networks; something I’d wholeheartedly support but which seems at odds with the notion of “network neutrality” as promoted in the the new Dorgan-Snowe bill and advocated for on this site by Wu et al.

Am I the only one who’s a little perplexed?

]]>