[124886] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Grundemann)
Wed Apr 7 10:42:37 2010
In-Reply-To: <20100407235116.7773cab2@opy.nosense.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:42:01 -0600
From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 08:21, Mark Smith
<nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
<snip>
> So, there's the problem. According to the above, I'm both for, and
> against, Network Neutrality.
>
> One thing which would significantly help this argument for or against
> Network Neutrality is defining exactly what it is.
ISOC has gone a step further and stopped using the term "network
neutrality" in general. This is due in large part to the problem you
described quite well here - the term is loaded with emotion and
largely undefined. They are now using the phrase "Open
Internetworking" to describe their stance on the issue.
For what it's worth, here is a good document recently published which
defines that stance:
http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/usercentricity/20100222-Inter-Networking.pdf
~Chris
<disclaimer>I am the founding chair of the Colorado Chapter of the
Internet Society - CO ISOC</disclaimer>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
--
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org
