[171871] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Weeks)
Thu May 15 15:21:46 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:58:44 -0700
From: "Scott Weeks" <surfer@mauigateway.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: surfer@mauigateway.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
From: Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@mykolab.com>
On 5/15/2014 10:06 AM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
> It's a shame the use of 'fast lane' is ubiquitous in this argument.
> If the local distribution networks would like to actually build
> something fast, then this would be a different story.
Okay, then call it the "faster lane" or the "uncongested lane" or
something that actually reflects bias and preferential treatment. It's
a done deal now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/fcc-approves-plan-to-allow-for-paid-priority-on-internet
--------------------------------------------
According to the doc it's not a done deal:
"The proposal is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a
significant step forward"
"Agencies almost always change their rules from the initial proposal"
"The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which
the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant
to take into account public opinion."
But, yeah. I don't believe for a minute that all/any this is above
board when it's coming from a lobbyist.
scott
