At root, the network neutrality/anti-regulation debate represents an attempt to introduce something that’s beyond best effort packet delivery (e.g., premium QoS); if we build fast, overprovisioned, architecturally clean best effort packet networks, QoS should satisfy no need and deliver no discernable benefit.

Thus, if we have fast, overprovisioned, architecturally clean best effort packet networks, the whole network neutrality/anti-regulation debate becomes effectively moot.
Joe St. Sauver

Joe St. Sauver’s talk at the Northwest Academic Computing Conference contains a lot of what people need to know about what we are calling “Network Neutrality.”

Focusing on Network Convergence (elimination of costly redundant separate networks for voice, video and data) as a desirable goal, Joe illustrates that under-provisioning bandwidth and over-complicating network architectures such as offering QoS or implementing ATM are the leading threats to convergence (with over-regulation close behind).

Joe draws a line between the ad hoc consumer market and the managed enterprise market and alows as how convergence is desirable and happening in both markets.

It would be interesting to see how the dinosaurs and the telco shills encounter Joe’s argument.   Let’s ask Richard Bennett!  (And while we have his attention let’s annoy him with Kristoff’s hippily illustrated presentation, “Tripping on QoS“).