nanog mailing list archives
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
From: Lamar Owen <lowen () pari edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:40:32 -0500
On 02/28/2015 07:33 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
The rules themselves are public. The area of uncertainty is whether the Report and Order will pull in more rules than just the newly published 47CFR§8. For instance, there's 47CFR§6 which deal with 'telecommunications' carriers and the ADA.On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:34 AM, John R. Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote: [...]Until yesterday, there were no network neutrality rules, not for spam or for anything else.There still aren't any network neutrality rules, until the FCC makes the documents public, which they haven't yet.
But as far as net neutrality is concerned, the actual rules dealing with the gist of it are embodied in 47CFR§8 "Preserving the Open Internet." Link to the eCFR page on it was posted elsewhere on the list.
Current thread:
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality, (continued)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Christopher Morrow (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality John R. Levine (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Owen DeLong (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality John R. Levine (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Owen DeLong (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Dave Taht (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Stephen Satchell (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality John Levine (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Livingood, Jason (Mar 01)
- Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Stephen Satchell (Mar 01)