Nor ensure 'lawful' content On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Zaid Ali <z...@zaidali.com> wrote:
> The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite > glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't > perform the proposed network management piece without deep packet > inspection > which violates every users privacy. > > Zaid > > > On 8/9/10 11:52 AM, "Joly MacFie" <j...@punkcast.com> wrote: > > > Surely "differentiated services" could include a 'YouTube Channel' - > > something they deny in the call? > > > > I've blogged the proposal at http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1112 > > > > j > > > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Jason Iannone <jason.iann...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> > >> > http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open > >> -internet.html > >> > >> Pretty boiler plate pro net neutral. The transparency requirements > >> and 'differentiated services' exceptions are particularly interesting. > >> > >> > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
