Search form

Comments (2)


Davis Onsakia (not verified) September 04, 2014

Thanks for this wonderful summary. However, will appreciate if you can elaborate on what you mean by '....... no unreasonable discrimination of traffic...' I dont expect any discrimination of traffic on the Net.

Vladimir Radunovic September 05, 2014

Davis, thank you for your comment. This was one of the hearths of the discussion - while some traffic management is needed for technical and QoS purposes (for instance, video services have, by definition, been prioritised in the network to make sure there are no interruptions in streaming, while emails can be delayed for some miliseconds), it was a general agreement on the term "no unreasonable discrimination occurs". The term "no unreasonable discrimination" is used in some existing net neutrality-related in Europe, US and elsewhere. There, the debate evolved around who and how would decide what is reasonable ie unreasonable discrimination (or, to put it in the other way - appropriate or inappropriate traffic management): we heard from the US FCC Commissioner, for instance, that the FCC deals with this based on public interests on case-by-case bases. It seems there is a need to go on with defining "unreasonable" - or rather "reasonable". Pls follow up with your thoughts and suggestions.

Leave a comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Scroll to Top