[Chapter-delegates] Possible collaboration on events

[Joly MacFie]

I think the public is already confused, and that open networking is
actually a clearer principle. Strange as it may seem I welcome the the
FCC decision as it actually serves to clarify the situation., a
re-opens the structural separation discussion.

Comcast's torrent reset spoofing was specifically necessitated by
shortcomings in DOCSIS that are addressed in version 3.0. What was
egregious that they did it clandestinely. To their credit they rapidly
opened up:
http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/Attachment_B_Future_Practices.pdf

The court found the FCC's regulation of such network management is
beyond it's currently mandated purview.

When it comes to an ISP giving preference to one proprietary service
over another, the core of Network Neutrality, this is an
anti-competitive action that is arguably a matter for the FTC rather
than FCC.

What would seem necessary is a clear definition of 'Internet Service'.

I will leave it to others to address federal mandates on IPv6 take up
but I would imagine such would be wholely antithetical to the
'internet model'.

j

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid at sfbayisoc.org> wrote:
> I think we are confusing the public, should we be spending valuable
> resources, money on going out there to redefine the term Net Neutrality?
>
> As for Comcast vs FCC, FCC had a terrible legal team here, the result is
> killing ants with DDT which means now Comcast and other providers to follow
> can use this decision to hamper progress under the blanket of "network
> management practice". This blow to the FCC is so great that I think we have
> no chance on getting the US governments support in the future for IPv6. I
> see that there will be a need in a few years to involve the US government to
> push providers to to IPv6 and the FCC should be in a position to regulate
> something like this, just as they did with cutting off analog TV. The
> current administration realizes that Internet is no different to the
> national telephone system or television.
>
> One of the key arguments used in Comcast Vs FCC by Comcast was "Preserving
> Bandwidth". Can't providers now use this to hamper IPv6 progress? Putting an
> IP address on a device is Network Management, the IPv6 packet is larger and
> I am sure you can tie all this to excessive bandwidth usage. Imagine a
> company doing a video application on IPv6 only. Vendors and providers are
> already complaining that they can't keep up with upgrading all their
> hardware to IPv6 compatibility, do we now have another loophole?
>
> Zaid
>
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------