From: Jeremy Rubin <:. > To: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 14:02:51 +0000 That seems to fly in the face of net neutrality though. I'm not sure I'm fully in the net-neutral camp, but having guaranteed QoS and low anonymity will prevent people from accessing websites that aren't pre-approved pre-vetted content. OTOH I could see the need for a QoS guaranteed high latency low bandwidth network (with origin) to enable the loT sector to build really interconnected real time products, without really threatening net neutrality. Knowing origin seems good; but this already exists within the intemet to an extent via public key crypto, although perhaps that leaves something to be desired. @Jerem Rubin On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 8:43 AM, jeffrey E. let@i gmail.com> wrote: i agree with danny , just like bitcoin or other digital currencies. I think the land of binary decision . its either this or that, now usually leads to the answer " both" Forwarded message From: Danny Hillis •cl Date: Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 8:33 AM Subject: Re: To: "jeffrey E." <[email protected]> The two properties that the Internet lacks are guaranteed quality of service (bandwidth and latency) and the ability to know for sure where a packet originated. These two features are fundamentally incompatible with the design of the Internet and they trade off against other features. For instance the second network I have in mind may well be inferior to the Internet in efficiency of utilization of the resources , so it will cost more per bit to send a message. It will probably be worse the than the Internet in supporting anonymity. So it it not a replacement for the Internet, but a complement to it. On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:58 PM, jeffrey E. <[email protected]> wrote: Forwarded messa e From: Jeremy Rubin Date: Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:51 AM Subject: Re: To: "jeffrey E." <[email protected]> I've been thinking a lot about this the past