On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:00:52PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
I haven't found a good source who knows what's going on outside his own
network.
Mr. Bennett,
You know when I first read your post, I assumed you were just ignorant
and confused about the topic of peering on the Internet. Then I
Thank you for your insights.
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:00:52PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
I haven't found a good source who knows what's going on outside his own
network.
Mr. Bennett,
You know when I first read your post, I assumed you were just
Richard Bennett wrote:
Speculation about how the money flows is a worthwhile activity.
Sure, no problem.
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
In summary, Mr Bennett is an unregistered lobbyist, employed by other
registered
Now you've descended from Steenbergen's hair-splitting between on-net
routes (the mechanism) vs. on-net access (the actual product) into
Simpson's straight-up lying. ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network
Neutrality,
Hi Richard,
I am late to this dicussion. So I don't have a full understanding of the
context or history of this debate.
It is clear to many of us that Telcos lost the content wars and this is their
way of trying to get a slice of the content providers (Google, Microsoft, etc.)
add revenues.
RB-
Where can we find data on your group's funding sources?
If we're to continue this discussion, we need to establish bias and
motive, which you've not covered on your own accord.
Drive Slow,
Paul Wall
On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote:
Now you've descended from
Would you care to elaborate on how the investigation of someones
funding sources is operationally relevant to the rest of the list?
Aaron Cossey
aaron.cos...@gmail.com
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Paul Wall pauldotw...@gmail.com wrote:
RB-
Where can we find data on your group's funding
Would you care to elaborate on how the investigation of someones
funding sources is operationally relevant to the rest of the list?
please no
we have a greedy troll. stop feeding it. procmail is your friend.
randy
I didn't bring this discussion over here, hippie.
Randy Bush wrote:
Would you care to elaborate on how the investigation of someones
funding sources is operationally relevant to the rest of the list?
please no
we have a greedy troll. stop feeding it. procmail is your friend.
randy
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said:
ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network
Neutrality, http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=63.
All of four paragraphs, which don't in fact address what
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:13 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said:
ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network
Neutrality,
Oh wait, those billions got pocketed - if the massive fiber
buildout had happened, we'd have so much bandwidth that
neutrality wouldn't be an issue...
Maybe this is how the fiber got used :))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFoG
Click through to the PDF, it's a 16 page paper.
RB
[1]valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said:
ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network
Neutrality,
Whether or not Mr Bennett has any idea what he is talking about- and I have
started to develop an opinion on that subject myself- I really would rather
not see Nanog become a forum for partisan political discussion. There are
_lots_ of places for that, which as a political junkie I read
(pardon me if this message is not formatted correctly, T-bird doesn't
like this list)
I agree that this is not the proper venue for discussion of the politics
of Internet regulation; the post I wrote for GigaOm has comments
enabled, and many people with an anti-capitalist bone to pick have
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 02:29:33PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
(pardon me if this message is not formatted correctly, T-bird doesn't
like this list)
I agree that this is not the proper venue for discussion of the
politics of Internet regulation; the post I wrote for GigaOm has
comments
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 02:29:33PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
* One claim I made in my blog post is that traffic increases on the
Internet aren't measured by MINTS very well. MINTS uses data from
Meet-me switches, but IX's and colos are pulling x-connects like mad so
more and more
http://gigaom.com/2009/11/22/how-video-is-changing-the-internet/
Does the FTC's question 106 hurt paid peering or not? 88 comments.
Makes real interesting reading, I must say.
srs
Yes, it's a good old-fashioned Usenet-style flame-fest. Sort of.
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
RB
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
http://gigaom.com/2009/11/22/how-video-is-changing-the-internet/
Does the FTC's question 106 hurt
* rich...@bennett.com (Richard Bennett) [Wed 25 Nov 2009, 05:56 CET]:
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
You're projecting.
-- Niels.
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
not really. it's just that those with the facts have no reason to blab
them and reasons not to do so.
randy
I haven't found a good source who knows what's going on outside his own
network.
Randy Bush wrote:
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
not really. it's just that those with the facts have no reason to blab
them and reasons not to
On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote:
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
Indeed you can. This is one of things where the people with the hard
facts aren't talking due to NDA, regard for their pride, or both. In
the
Speculation about how the money flows is a worthwhile activity.
Paul Wall wrote:
On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett [1]rich...@bennett.com wrote:
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
Indeed you can. This is one of things where the people
Of course, the FCC/FTC could always get involved and mandate full
disclosure and peering neutrality.
That might be fun.
RB
Richard Bennett wrote:
Speculation about how the money flows is a worthwhile activity.
Paul Wall wrote:
On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett [1]rich...@bennett.com wrote:
and in the absence of source routing, why would I care what happens
past the first hop? to the extent I can know, document, and prove
my internal network and its connectivity to its peers, that becomes
the item of value, the reputation of the network and its treatment
of its peers,
26 matches
Mail list logo
