The blogosphere seems ablaze with Amazon's suggestion that QoS priority services could be allowed on the Internet subject to non-interference with regular traffic. Now leaving aside the fact that priority means some investment is for private traffic not the public Internet, meaning compromises not absolutes, what is new about Amazon net neutrality? Its net neutrality lite - some protections for universal Internet service but permitting private investment.
Paul Misener said the same thing - for what may have been the first time - at George Mason University in September 2006 - 40 months ago. Does anyone know of an earlier statement of the same?
P.S. Ken Carter has posted his paper (in Japanese) comparing net neutrality to samurai-first rules on Japanese public roads 300 years ago. His point was that its about socio-economic policy priorities - my response would be that I prefer the British common carriage rules that the US inherited back then!