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.

I believe that it is only appropriate to start out this post by saying that I do not support government broadband expansion lest anyone be confused by the title. Government broadband expansion is not something that we have supported at Digital Society either as you can both see in our Issue Statement on Internet…

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.

From the Associated Press’ AP History — 1846-1900:

1875
Over objections from Western Union, AP secures its first leased telegraph wire, a 226-mile circuit between New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, enabling AP to move news unencumbered by delays and competition for the wire.

It is a good thing that the FCC did not exist then, or AP would probably be in its 50th round of hearings as to whether this proposal was in the public interest.

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.

Richard Bennett has just created High Tech Forum: Thoughts from the Technology Trenches, because:
Some of the most critical technology and telecommunications policy debates take place without the input of those most knowledgeable about the issues, and most affected by the outcomes.  Hightechforum.org is an open forum where such experts can offer their perspectives and opinions in a robust exchange of ideas.

Richard is up there with my colleague George Ou in the ranks of those who really understand the technological realities of the public policy issues …

Intel President Paul Otellini’s speech last Monday (text here; video here) expressing concern about the direction of public policy has gotten heavy ink in both the tech and the business press.
Samples:
Declan McCullagh, CNET: Intel Chief Executive Officer Paul Otellini offered a depressing set of observations about the economy and the Obama administration Monday evening, coupled with a dark commentary on the future of the technology industry if nothing changes.  . . . Not long ago, Otellini said, “our research centers were without peer. No country was …

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.

Downes has recently penned a paper for PFF in which he briefly explains how we have gotten to the point we are currently at in the Net Neutrality debate. He follows this with the options the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had after the D.C. Circuit case against Comcast:

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.