For people interested, there is a discussion of the roots of the
"network neutrality" concept at internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org

Some of it seems, to my eyes, to be uninformed by the community that
works in the AQM space, so I see perfectly serious quotes like
>
>     Longer packets might be dropped in favor of shorter ones. Packets
>     in a
>     burst might be dropped in favor of ones that are spaced out.
>
>     This gets back to the point of neutrality - which describes some
>     level
>     of "equivalence", but there's never just one version of
>     equivalence that
>     everyone will accept.
>
>     If you want to preserve the Internet architecture, you need to
>     make sure
>     that:
>
>     Packets shall not be discriminated except on their inherent
>     properties (size, time of arrival) or explicit user-inserted
>     label (e.g., a QoS tag).
>
>     If you want to make sure that packets are "fairly dropped",
>     there's no
>     single such thing; one link might be bandwidth limited (so drop
>     proportional to length is fair), and the next might be header
>     processing
>     limited (so per-packet drop is fair); for a given path, there's no
>     single mechanism that satisfies the variety of fairnesses that
>     could be
>     required. 
>
If anyone's also interested in Network Neutrality and its roots, please
feel free to hop over and contribute some informed opinions (;-))

--dave





-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain