Net Neutrality: A Response to Mr. Crovitz's Dec 22 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

The following letter is a response to this op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, today.

I apologize for the jargon, but your 12/22/08 editorial blurs caching and packet switching. Caching is the process of storing pre-rendered content and locating those servers efficiently, to speed retrieval. Packet switching refers to the way in which data chunks are put into order as they head into the traffic line on the 'net.

Properly used, "net neutrality" refers only to packet switching-- it means that the routing algorithm does not care _what_ the data packet carries as it is routed. Your op-ed provides a hearty defense of caching and I agree. But, you seem to really want to make a case for non-neutral packet switching.

Why is it bad to have non-neutral packet switching? Because the companies in favor of it are not purely network companies, they are also content companies. Take your example of Comcast who "(without disclosure) slowed down a provider of online video so that other Web traffic could move more smoothly." Were Comcast simply a network provider, that would sound like altruism. But they are also a video content provider, and so your sentence could just as well have read "Comcast... (without disclosure) slowed down **a competitor**..."

These are the reasons the 'net neutrality debate lingers: 1) Neutral packet switching is an essential part of TCP/IP networking as described by AT&T in its own manuals published by Prentice Hall decades ago, 2) The network companies are not free markets but near-monopolies with plenty of regulatory intervention, 3) The network companies are also content providers and therefore have incentive to use non-neutral packet switching to juice their own content returns.

Sincerely,
...