Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate

You can find a PDF copy of the paper in its entirety here.

Richard Bennett investigates the idea that the Internet was built on system in which there are “prohibitions on taking action”.  While the Internet was designed to be an open platform and provide ease of use and access to play a role in it daily function, the end-to-end principle is not a reflection of the designers belief that network operators should not take an active role in the management of networks.

• The basis for the Net Neutrality debate comes from the original philosophical differences in the end-to-end principle as a function of network design for the ease of implementation of new technologies or simply to be a “stupid” network.
• Those in favor of Net Neutrality are in many cases calling for regulation that will control aspects of the Internets central structure, when the actual concern should be with the edges of the network where various end-user applications would be found.
• “Applied blindly, end-to-end can become a dogma that limits network efficiency, increases costs, and constrains opportunities to innovate.”
• Net Neutrality advocates believe the end-to-end principle should transfer packets using a single delivery service.  Doing this penalizes time sensitive applications like voice and video.
• Engineering traffic management solutions into the infrastructure will be of great importance to the Internet of the future.

Bennett presents rich arguments with visual representations of what he is explaining.  He delves into the technical issues surrounding the Internets engineering roots.  This is then used to show why the academic understanding of the end-to-end principle, instead of engineering realities, are fueling the Net Neutrality debate.

You can find a PDF copy of the paper in its entirety here.