Re: the confusion about net neutrality

Do read the full cdt submission

Unlike what the view aired in the media - and pushed by some activists - says, the issue is rather more nuanced, and all packets are by design not really equal

Please approach this from a competition policy perspective on last mile access rather than packet prioritisation 

--srs

> On 15-May-2015, at 7:52 am, Arun Mehta <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> The link you pointed to, Suresh, says nothing about the point I raise. I stand by what I said -- restricting net neutrality is a lose lose.
> Suresh, dear co-moderator, we must try to raise the level of respect and politeness shown by members to other members. Your comment below is not helpful. If you have something to offer by way of rebuttal, by all means. But gratuitous criticism is uncalled for.
> Arun
> 
>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Traffic engineering for different applications to efficiently operate actually DEMANDS that you look at and prioritise packets so they perform well.
>> 
>> Please steer clear of generalisations.  If you want a reasonable model look at the CDT position paper on network neutrality 
>> 
>> Summarised here - https://cdt.org/blog/cdt-supports-effective-narrowly-targeted-net-neutrality-rules/
>> 
>>> On 14-May-2015, at 5:24 pm, Arun Mehta <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Restricting Net neutrality is a lose-lose option, imo. When you look at each packet to see whether it gets preference or not, you slow down the traffic drastically. So much so, that even access to the preferred sites is likely to be slower. 
>>> Asking TRAI to regulate experimentation? Terrible idea.
>

_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii