North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Net Neutrality

  • From: David Diaz
  • Date: Thu Apr 06 13:04:41 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UjO0FX6rj6PwyDVQ/Qe5bmUUoNGy5cKodywr1jolZghCZIqMr9sdeJAM9eTqIrCtmrSATc1q10eqU47ddqOaiX+P9ofhWcfsnNzydz8qCKJ2YOQ5A0graHW77o5FfxwIbtlEx2t0qW58eUr07KaFcTzgj4CjQbhpMYxjS2jcHK0=
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, [email protected] <[email protected]> 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....
>
>
>
>