[119657] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed Nov 25 10:14:35 2009
To: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST."
<4B0D15B2.8090407@bennett.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:13:10 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1259161990_3129P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said:
> ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
> in principle, having released a paper on "A Third Way on Network
> Neutrality", http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=63.
All of four paragraphs, which don't in fact address what the provider is or is
not providing to Joe Sixpack - point 1 says discriminatory plans are OK as long
as the discriminatory are on display in the cellar of the ISP office, with no
stairs, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory
with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.
And points 2 and 3 are saying that this should all be overseen by the same
agencies that oversaw the previous decade's massive buildout of fiber to the
home that was financed by massive multi-billion dollar incentives.
Oh wait, those billions got pocketed - if the massive fiber buildout had
happened, we'd have so much bandwidth that neutrality wouldn't be an issue...
But then, the Republicans keep saying they are not opposed to health care
reform in principle either...
--==_Exmh_1259161990_3129P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFLDUmGcC3lWbTT17ARAjcyAKC+pAizDdIKY9FOBlrLiGCrlejQlwCeMtyc
yZYYSn1XSXSENn9OmREKlPk=
=MQrn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1259161990_3129P--
