[91223] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Jul 10 16:23:53 2006
To: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:25:55 EDT."
<44B2A9C3.53B5B0A1@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:23:20 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1152562999_3170P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:25:55 EDT, Seth Johnson said:
> (2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges=20
> a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact=20
> provide access to the Internet in accord with the above=20
> definition, regardless whether additional proprietary=20
> content, information or other services are also=20
> provided as part of a package of services offered to=20
> consumers.
So how does all this mumbo-jumbo square up with the common practices of
blocking SMTP and the 135-139/445 ports to protect your own infrastructur=
e from
the mass of malware that results if you don't block it? And does this me=
an
that my Verizon DSL isn't 'The Internet' because the customer side of the=
modem
hands me a DHCP address in RFC1918 space? For bonus points - is the DSL *=
still*
=22not the Internet=22 if I bring my own DSL modem or hand-configure the =
DSL one to
mitigate the effects of NAT brain damage?
What percentage of cable and DSL access is an =22unfair or deceptive act=
=22
per the definition of this?
--==_Exmh_1152562999_3170P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFEsrc3cC3lWbTT17ARAqy8AJ95O/imfS0e+7Q4akq6lIBCXxZUNwCfShp3
ueDD9pJXweudxrw04TX0xWE=
=8kUX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1152562999_3170P--
