Mike Miller wrote: > I don't want this to turn into an unpleasant argument. I'm actually not > taking sides, just looking for more information. You have a fair question. Here's my response: 1. The "end-to-end" nature of the Internet is one of it's huge strengths: From Code v.2 http://codebook.jot.com/Book/Chapter4/Ch4Part2 This minimalism in design is intentional. It reflects both a political decision about disabling control and a technological decision about the optimal network design. The designers were not interested in advancing social control; they were concerned with network efficiency. Thus, this design pushes complexity out of the basic Internet protocols, leaving it to the applications, or ends, to incorporate any sophistication that a particular service may require See also: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/e2e/papers.html 2. The answer I like to use w.r.t. handling QoS is simply to add more bandwidth (presumably there's a *lot* of dark fiber out there -- even before fancy WDM). By now do we really have to worry that the Internet build out will stop because we don't encourage biz models around QoS *a la* "your next hop is brought to you by McDonald's"? 3. pointer to... Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/ 4. Net neutrality is probably a pre-requisite to public Internet access (i.e. free and libre municipal WiFi, WiMAX, other). Google in San Francisco: 'Wireless overlord'? http://news.com.com/Google+in+San+Francisco+Wireless+overlord/2100-1039_3-5886968.html "The word 'free' in this context is problematic. Google expects more than incurring costs from this test bed, and it'll be keeping all kinds of data about what people do on the network. (Yes, there's that Google-versus-privacy question again; it just keeps coming up.)," That's all for now ;-) --Tom