[IP] Re: My [ Dave Farber ] position on Comcastidiocy

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
From: David P. Reed [dpreed@reed.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 1:50 PM
To: David Farber
Cc: ip
Subject: Re: [IP] My [ Dave Farber ] position on Comcastidiocy

Spin is wonderful.  Brett is 100% incorrect in spinning what Net
Neutrality meant when it was proposed.  It wasn't what he wants it to
have been.  In fact, he is the last person who can claim any expertise
in saying what Net Neutrality was, is, or should be.  He opposes all
possible constraints on his behavior.  (or is that last statement of
mine spin? Brett could tell us what constraints he would accept on
lariat.org).

David Farber wrote:
> ________________________________________
> From: Brett Glass [brett@lariat.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:41 PM
> To: David Farber; ip
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   My [ Dave Farber ] position on Comcastidiocy
>
> At 05:03 PM 1/18/2008, David Farber wrote:
>
>
>> I only have one concern re this note. Lauren ends with waving the
>> magic wand of Net Neutrality.
>> I fail to see what this has to do with that subject unless you are
>> interested in having Net Neutrality cover all posible sims in
>> which case nothing will be done to
>> address real NN problems when they occur.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> Dave:
>
> This is a disturbing trend, and one that IPers and other concerned
> parties should be aware of. "Net Neutrality" has morphed from a
> very specific, well defined concept (i.e. carriers refraining from
> anticompetitive practices that discourage the use of competitive
> products, e.g. VoIP) to unbounded regulation of every conceivable
> practice in which ISPs might engage. In short, fine grained
> regulation of the Internet and government micromanagement of ISPs
> -- which I don't think is something most folks would want to see.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
>

-------------------------------------------