[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

What Net Neutrality should and should not cover

Subject: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:28:28 -0400
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:08:55 -0700." <[email protected]>
References: <CAObxEFDCRTJd1KSa_6nh19xBf+r=VcFDWaRfi-hxTLViVdcG5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAE7MFiKk1rTG1Vga49kSV9bk1oUHWHfez36hDYm+fju=Ki52Og@mail.gmail.com> <CAObxEFDhwrxae94BTXYaFN1n78ZVY3RTPKJ4ojUiD05Myh+G9w@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]>

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:08:55 -0700, TGLASSEY said:

> 1)       The pipe issue is that of the last mile providers and not
> Netflix. The issue is the failure of the IETF to put controls in place
> which address this.

It's totally unclear to me that the IETF is the one who failed to put
controls in place.  If they were able to mandate anything, BCP38 wouldn't
be an issue.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140428/505b7db0/attachment.pgp>

References:
- What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
  - From: jnanog at gmail.com (Rick Astley)
- What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
  - From: nick at pelagiris.org (Nick B)
- What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
  - From: jnanog at gmail.com (Rick Astley)
- What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
  - From: tglassey at earthlink.net (TGLASSEY)

Prev by Date: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
Next by Date: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
Previous by thread: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
Next by thread: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread