The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

Michael Thomas mike at
Mon Apr 28 02:33:30 UTC 2014

On 04/27/2014 05:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Beyond that, there’s a more subtle argument also going on about 
> whether $EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to 
> $CONTENT_A and less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method 
> for encouraging subscribers to select $CONTENT_A over $CONTENT_B by 
> affecting the relative performance. This becomes much stickier when 
> you face the reality that in many places, $EYEBALL_PROVIDER has an 
> effective monopoly as the only player choosing to offer services at a 
> useful level of bandwidth/etc. (If that).

Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue 
with their crappy last mile
service that is shameful for a supposed first world country?

Cue up Randy on why this is all such a painful joke.


More information about the NANOG mailing list