Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Mon Sep 13 16:05:09 UTC 2010

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Hank Nussbacher <hank at efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/paid-prioritized-traffic

No, the founders anticipated source-declared priorities for unpaid
military and government traffic. Commercial Internet really wasn't on
their radar.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Rodrick Brown <rodrick.brown at gmail.com> wrote:
> Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't
> going to happen this model is used for many other outlets
> today I'm not sure why so many are against it when it comes
> to net access.

It's a question of double-billing. I've already paid you to send and
receive packets on my behalf. Detuning my packets because a second
party hasn't also paid you is cheating, maybe fraudulent.

It'd be like the post office treating first class mail like bulk mail
unless the recipient pays a first class mailbox fee in addition to the
sender paying for first class delivery.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> However, the proposed "remedies" of banning all filtering ever, or
> requiring free peering to everyone (taking both to the extreme, of
> course) don't match the operational real world.  Many of those who
> are pushing for network neutrality are pushing for an ideal that
> the network simply cannot deliver, no matter what.

The network could deliver "cost-reimbursable" peering, in which any
service provider above a particular size is by regulation compelled to
provide peering at the cost of the basic connection in at least one
location in each state in which they operate Internet infrastructure.
As a matter of simple fairness, someone else has already paid them to
move the packets. Why should you have to pay them more than the cost
of the port?

A small number of transit-frees would resent it, but it would damage
them only in that it levels the playing field for small businesses,
enhancing the small businesses' capabilities without enhancing their

> Rather than network neutrality, I'd simply like to see truth in
> advertising applied.

Now you're talking about something that truly can't happen. You can't
sell a service that, on paper, delivers less than the other guy's.
Advertising is a constant race to the bottom because that's the
behavior consumers reward.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the NANOG mailing list