Proponents of a dumb First In First Out (FIFO) “end-to-end” Internet architecture are typically lawyers and non network engineers who don’t understand the actual usage and context of FIFO in the paper “End-to-end arguments in system design”. That paper actually argued against a FIFO enabled network.

AT&T presents its evidence in support of priority network services but Free Press goes on the attack. Unfortunately, Free Press doesn’t address any of the substantive arguments in favor of priority network services which have always thrived on the Internet.

Does cable really cost $100/month or are tech geeks misrepresenting the costs compared to Internet alternatives? By the time the equipment leasing is factored out and premium channels are factored in, the online alternatives won’t be priced much differently.

Sameer Soleja like so many other Net Neutrality proponents completely misrepresents the issues surrounding Net Neutrality. They want to scare the public into supporting restrictions on voluntary and beneficial business agreements by misrepresenting them as extortionist agreements.

The Washington Post made an earnest attempt to have a thoughtful debate on how the FCC should best regulate the Internet. But to have that thoughtful debate, the Post’s editorial is sorely in need of some basic fact checks.

This Washington Post editorial says that wireless networks are just like wired networks and that most users don’t “obsess over ping times”. It’s really a shame that the editor(s) didn’t ask what the engineers thought or what users really thought when faced with the actual consequences of extreme Net Neutrality rules.

A UK ISP prioritizing gaming traffic might sound like common sense to engineers and gamers, but it’s raising the ire of ignorant Net Neutrality proponents who buy into the myth that the “end-to-end” architecture of the Internet requires that all applications are treated equally. You won’t even hear leading Net Neutrality regulation advocate Vint Cerf argue that jitter management should be outlawed.

The FCC and media are perpetuating the sensational headline that broadband performance is only half of the advertised figures, but this is grossly misleading because it conflates Internet performance with broadband which are two different things. Internet performance is often limited by non-ISP factors.

After reading this summary of the Net Neutrality debate from David Post, I’ve decided to write the following open letter to him.

The word “Network Neutrality” has always been so vague that it could mean any desirable thing people wanted it to be.  The inverse of “Network Neutrality” or a “non-neutral network” could mean any undesirable thing people wanted it to mean.  If people of a certain political leanings could be whipped into a frenzy when told that FoxNews.com might load faster than DailyKos under a non-neutral network, that myth was and will continue to be propagated.  Never mind that websites have never loaded at the same speed on the Internet, facts aren’t important …