>We find this principle to be self evident, that all internet traffic is to be treated as equal.
That is it. No complex case law, no little print, no arcane law language.
What about botnets? worms? DOS attacks?
What about botnets? worms? DOS attacks?
"All user requested internet traffic is to be treated as equal"
I do not know much about servers, but as I understand it Google runs a server and they doing so I do not think affects the traffic of my website. If however Google running a server would mean that my website would run more slowly, except for perhaps the distinction that it adds real capacity, I do not see how that is more different than paying the ISP to prioritize your traffic. Though I might need some enlightening.
Also, Google has its own fiber which carries only Google packets. Not exactly net neutral there. And Google's control over site ranking in search results affects traffic prioritization on just as large and deterministic a scale as AT&T's hypothetical packet ranking.
The issue is way more complicated than people realize.
In a networked economy sometimes coordination between different companies is deeper than two offices of the same company. Why should a company be allowed to have dedicated lines between its own arms, and not to important partners?
Once you agree that total equality isn't actually possibly, we are now arguing about exactly which non-neutral policy to apply. Very similar to the anecdotal story about Winston Churchill that ends with "Now we are haggling about the price."
That's all 'net neutrality' means, or should mean.
A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from--
(1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice;
(2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and
(3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service
Discriminating against torrent traffic can be like racial profiling. A protocol is not an intent.
If you do want profiling, perhaps consumers running Windows should pay a higher fees and be given less bandwidth since those customers have higher support costs and have the machines most used for DDOS attacks, sending spam/scam and other foul behavior.
Windows machines harm the network. If a customer wishes to configure his router to share the bandwidth he's paid for, that's not theft of service. (Also read the F.C.C. notices included with U.S. routers - they don't own spectrum)