[171264] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Thu Apr 24 11:00:12 2014
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <c5c560ba0b0f05558a495360c5e6ed64.squirrel@66.201.44.180>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:59:52 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_EB65A746-00E8-419A-806C-EEC06759EABA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
I think you and I disagree on the definition of "anti-competitive".
But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured =
the FCC thing was timely and operational.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
On Apr 24, 2014, at 10:53 , Bob Evans <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com> =
wrote:
> Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
>=20
> After all just about everyone continues to buys Cisco gear. Gear from =
a
> router company that decided to compete against it's own customer base.
> Cisco did when it invested heavily and took stock in one of it's
> customers, Cogent. Cogent the largest network responsible (for the =
most
> part) of lowering the overall bandwidth prices, because it could now
> afford too. Networks today continue to feed Cisco money (buying their
> gear) despite the anti-competitive nature of that deal which kindled =
all
> this. Still to this day, Cisco fuels Cogent's (anti-competitive) low
> bandwidth pricing. By handing Cisco dollars, from that day forward, we
> voted for fewer ISPs & Backbones in the future.
>=20
> Suck in your gut, because, it's to late to cry about it now. This =
concern
> is over a decade late. That's how we got to this point. "Cause and =
Effect
> - and the Blinders we put on".
>=20
> How can that be fixed ? More government regulations ?
>=20
> Bob Evans
> CTO
>=20
>> Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies =
can
>> charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?
>>=20
>> In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer =
have a
>> tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one
>> broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming =
provider, I
>> cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming =
company. I
>> MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can
>> "choose".
>>=20
>> How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
>>=20
>> --
>> TTFN,
>> patrick
>>=20
>> =
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-plan=
ning-new-net-neutrality-rules-and-they-could-enshrine-pay-for-play/
>>=20
>>=20
>> Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
--Apple-Mail=_EB65A746-00E8-419A-806C-EEC06759EABA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTWSboAAoJEHZX8udmu5TXboYH/0ISF0vsqbdZoszDafpd90FN
5SsstiivSZsDD3cNTtAZlh9flodONEqFdhwFcunnt6oao9OAv1Xn20gfb2SsqR/J
zuLwNjfEAfnZg0umST/I2pji4MbNsZ8kldRfpFKuAaECFzooKWDFG9p7m1TeJH9i
tBO707E9dfTjADJQu6vHTUFOqNjLznOdEkbW6dnylqOaiaHb8PJU5uXIPHoQOJni
JQ/IrHTfS8oYdwdOeml0HA9NVAJys+Tc/lL/AL/wWg44cUDgDYTP4pILGJvqUIKd
M3AvSGaaJdhLetXqO9rfat4UlCBTm6cosGVCP7ymFIL2RY5cA2TYHGJrM3wh2ds=
=OCjb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_EB65A746-00E8-419A-806C-EEC06759EABA--
