nanog mailing list archives
Re: Net Neutrality
From: "David Diaz" <davediaz.tech () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:03:29 -0400
That was an interesting point. Basically you are claiming your network does not have all the resources it needs for peak utilization and therefore you are degrading some traffic. This was a very big topic at the voice peering fabric mtg last week. Most operators are terrified this means their voip service will be affected. I see that as an operational issue. Whether all packets should be treated equally. On 4/6/06, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:18:24 EDT, David Diaz said:The list is extremely quiet on Net Neutrality. I cannot find a single post. I thought this would be a good debate topic. The usual gov regulation vs free market argument along side the RBOC vs Everyone else topic.This list is about network operations. There's other lists devoted to crackpot business models. ;) On the other hand, if somebody's $DAYJOB has decided to offer selective performance degradation as a business model, we'll be happy to discuss it then....
Current thread:
- Net Neutrality David Diaz (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality Christian Kuhtz (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality Eric Pancer (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality Christian Kuhtz (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality Eric Pancer (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality Matt Ghali (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality Christian Kuhtz (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality Christian Kuhtz (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality David Diaz (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality Albert Meyer (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality Bill Woodcock (Apr 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Net Neutrality Fergie (Apr 06)
- Re: Net Neutrality Scott Weeks (Apr 06)