[178353] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen R. Carter)
Fri Feb 27 11:08:07 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Stephen R. Carter" <stephen.carter@gltgc.org>
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:07:18 +0000
In-Reply-To: <54F0958F.7070105@meetinghouse.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
The funniest thing about Verizon complaining about Title II, is that they
used Title II to roll out their FIOS FTTP.
I really am unsure of what they expected the outcome to be, and further
proves the point of how big of a mess ISP=B9s in this country are.
Stephen Carter | IT Systems Administrator | Gun Lake Tribal Gaming
Commission
1123 129th Avenue, Wayland, MI 49348
Phone 269.792.1773=20
On 2/27/15, 11:04 AM, "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>I'd think they'd be better off with some jujitsu, along the lines of:
>
>"We've always practiced network neutrality, not like some of our
>competitors, this won't effect us at all and may enforce some good
>business practices on others"
>
>(As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favoring their
>own content - for all intents and purposes, they operate FIOS as a
>common carrier - no funny throttling, no usage caps, etc.)
>
>I'm surprised they weren't a bit more vocal on the OTHER FCC decision of
>the day - preempting some state restrictions on municipal broadband
>builds - Verizon has been very active in pushing state laws to kill muni
>networks (even in places where they have no intention of building out).
>
>Miles Fidelman
>
>Scott Fisher wrote:
>> I am not arguing that they have a valid complaint. I just think their
>> method of doing so is a bit childish. It does get the point across,
>> just not in the method I respect. Just my opinion though.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
>>> Scott Fisher,
>>>
>>> I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate.
>>>Some
>>> people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of
>>> Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool
>>>as
>>> having supported SOPA.
>>>
>>> btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know...
>>>those
>>> hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone
>>>know
>>> if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
>>>
>>> Rob McEwen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>=20
>>>>>http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-mov
>>>>>e-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--=20
>In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>
<br><hr><font face=3D'Arial' color=3D'Gray' size=3D'1'>The information cont=
ained in this electronic transmission (email) is confidential information a=
nd may be subject to attorney/client privilege. It is intended only for the=
use of the individual or entity named above. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING O=
F THIS MESSAGE IS PROHIBITED, except by the intended recipient. Attempts to=
intercept this message are in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2511(1) of the Electr=
onic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which subjects the interceptor to f=
ines, imprisonment and/or civil damages.</font>
