It makes the thread very hard to follow.
Why not?
> Please don't top post!
From: Justin Horstman <justin.horstman@gorillanation.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:54:12 -0700
That link is silly, and completely opposite to what they said....
From: Harry Hoffman [mailto:hhoffman@ip-solutions.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:00 AM
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
Heh, well is seems like one of the PIRGs is joining the fray, at least
in PA:
http://www.pennpirg.org/action/google?id4=es
The NY Times article has little to nothing to do with reality and it was
bad of PennPIRG to cite that bit of twaddle.
That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE
loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with
most anything. for example, it expressly excludes and wireless network.
It is being widely interpreted as being anti-network neutrality. Whether
Google intended this is unclear. I suspect Verizon wanted exactly what
it got.
Kevin Oberman wrote:
That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE
loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with
most anything. for example, it expressly excludes and wireless network.
Not having read any of the articles and not having researched the matter of network neutrality much at all. But wouldn't using either a VPN service or setting up VPN on one or more virtual servers at strategic locations of your choice avoid this? Unless "they" try to bandwidth limit your VPN tunnel(s) indiscriminately. Or did I miss something blatantly obvious?
At least VPN does a great job of "routing around" GeoIP blocking...
Greetings,
Jeroen
Kevin Oberman wrote:
That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE
loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with
most anything. for example, it expressly excludes and wireless network.
Not having read any of the articles and not having researched the matter
of network neutrality much at all. But wouldn't using either a VPN
service or setting up VPN on one or more virtual servers at strategic
locations of your choice avoid this? Unless "they" try to bandwidth
limit your VPN tunnel(s) indiscriminately. Or did I miss something
blatantly obvious?
At least VPN does a great job of "routing around" GeoIP blocking...
The way I understand it is if you aren't paying for preferred service then your VPN traffic would be at the bottom of the stack on forwarding. So while it gets around GeoIP stuff vpns would be subject to the same quality of service settings as any other traffic that isn't paying for a faster service.
Joseph
Isn't the essence of consensus is to find common areas of agreement while
punting on the rest. There's plenty to focus on that IS in there, like
transparency and FCC control?
Kevin Oberman wrote:
This sounds suspiciously like Matt Blaze's observation:
"A commercial CA will protect you from anyone whose money it refuses to take".
As usual, it ends up as "follow the money".