nanog mailing list archives
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 23:42:41 +0100
* chkuhtz () microsoft com (Christian Kuhtz) [Mon 23 Nov 2015, 19:43 CET]:
I don't know if this is NN or not, but the concept is ancient. Even back in the dark ages of mobile, zero rating and associated rev share were very common.Whether this is relevant to NN or not is for lawyers.
This is backwards. It's definitely a net neutrality issue since it concerns inequal access for customers to content on the Internet. Whether it's subject to current laws or regulation is a matter for the lawyers, but current laws and regulations at least in the US are a far cry from actual net neutrality. (If you want a good example of that, look to the Netherlands.)
-- Niels.
Current thread:
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?, (continued)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Baldur Norddahl (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Mark Andrews (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Keenan Tims (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Mike Hammett (Nov 24)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Tony Hain (Nov 26)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Sander Steffann (Nov 24)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Jean-Francois Mezei (Nov 25)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Jean-Francois Mezei (Nov 25)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Keith Medcalf (Nov 28)