The intent was that an isp couldn't throttle competitor traffic in preference of their own, but in true bureaucratic fashion they purposefully left it vague so it could be reinterpreted at whim.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 7:55 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > The 2015 Open Internet Order didn't do even 1/10th of the things > attributed to it. It had nothing to do with congestion, censorship, > freedom, service pricing, etc. > > > The rules were no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. > All three rules had the exception for "reasonable network management". > Reasonable management was not specifically defined, but in discussion it > was said to be driven by a technical need rather than a business one. So > the blocking and throttling we all do to make traffic flow properly was ok > and nobody was ever going to pay any of us for prioritization. I've never > been convinced that the rule was necessary. It seemed like a rule saying > ISP's can't build moon rockets....like ok I'll stop my Apollo project > immediately. > > > The actual rules were trivial to obey and I'd bet almost nobody here was > ever breaking them My only concern was Title II status could open the door > on additional rules that might be more onerous later. > > > > On 11/23/2020 8:40 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > The original Net Neutrality had nothing to do with congested upstream or > peering ports. > > > Why force your competition to be less bad? > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Darin Steffl" <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> > *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com> > <af@af.afmug.com> > *Sent: *Saturday, November 21, 2020 9:48:05 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference > > If net neutrality comes back, there will likely be similar exemptions for > ISP's less than 100k subscribers or whatever the number was before. > > It shouldn't affect us in any real way. It will force the big ISP's to be > good (better?) guys and not let peering cross connects fill up and become > congested for example. > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2020, 9:45 PM Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> wrote: > >> On 11/21/20 7:36 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> > But as amusing as this may be, it might be time to start looking at how >> > the next administration could affect WISPs. Like a 3-2 Dem FCC and a >> > new Chairman (woman?). Will Net Neutrality and Title II return? Does >> > it matter? >> > >> >> >> Net neutrality seems likely to make a comeback. Would it change anything >> I do? No, but it might add annoying paperwork. Worst case someone thinks >> I'm doing something and files a formal complaint, which would waste time >> having to answer it. >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
