From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1965B3B2A4 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 04:00:38 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1697616035; x=1698220835; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=ixBCDl+MnHXLnAmhScIwWBUio/PN/pV4nKpc0a4PZxQ=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=VNtqwEOCcRAlREC7lRSy4+ZAuz+QiwYI3ZxIFhiHPeiO85aUd3GPo2Pr50tWkF9Id48GNjLWKwC W6hc6mQ9BjJ9rUeCP6uSWeSdlZADS9cPAxeV06JTMeTd9vuP8+efRDVbb5Q5WO4sAdmFEVaVyiLgV dNq3PhoPx4GEE0bvl7qcvTFH0uIW93AxjZKZ2asURyA6hG0bXARl40JMjmXxHLssgbqRin/kOrmqN fHOVSiDw/u8NI1olEFOBdiXyd0oAHTqp39cIwmMHVSdDgTWgNsAYKPB9sQBCf8gA6bmN2gGPT1aYJ llrWkLNKkvRYTU+E+JgUceBIlz1ZAZ3ZuacQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MN5iZ-1r9Jyh3tIb-00J4L7; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:00:34 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:00:33 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <30B37F02-FF93-4551-B9A7-096F1727B81C@gmx.de> References: <7FAB46F4-EA85-446F-BCC0-B79C03E0C11D@comcast.com> To: thejoff@mail.com, =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:JXrOBaElrJcqVc0MmDI8U0vI6rVbwgwZUdJZigyF3xNdk3/HxtT 7zKSofD2JAlO2E46OkaK1973QFdMZ3CJJPvMfOcmxOFkRIHXzB8EpOg1caAf8HC5/sGG9bH MqRjfQjXlFewjg3ABxtGGKbUg5uNYjRabQjgDlsRNdfMnjNg+/99Ife8J0JlWAJJDIZTDfV +KIIlve4LJSNC6RFC5/BA== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:FBjCHineTCo=;wVbGPZLf3IgTjmNwUTzjpLg1Vjh rfrpBuizMJ1tTzSvoXm0ijD2EX4G8C8FByVI0qizctEODY7JS36ijWLXNpv5LoRTkYrnw96oD ai3mA549LQTpWX/v1muUGl3m7MpzdPWEjfbHqr2CnAHCOJoMfe3ylzXoJEYDjvmUWKugR5P9T 4mFMJB3VR924w15fOGyKDmYDDWKRmFjEDpc87Fg7e7s/z/xeSjQE83D8ID3Rt5h+fcVVe2FnD 6D91W8cuHEK3mPJMO+NtXQ4h28pY+MUmVSyfUYp0kbyK3ACKrlJaf+z9W6hklmiMRpktTt4d6 MEkibt/N1qgDSjgzbAZUmub1SHT2magbtEJzKBBhE4hkpggDODE3wbKt5WpFEzc7mH+D6Hano ylJYE5O1VfUSzCdtDcxalWKPqm44kPzROCdcrPWXGEf99iv6dfKaM/2eMo/q4HIC8TMyiP3vD 8GGIRw23yZH3GnvFacEWjG94ro1/wdgjNgKXIqzWvmK/5as1bDdzWidkTrN/lQTTacRm+4Lpc 4sxkdbEUa0V+wgEa8Kt0PGjIpZ/bPcPaK3sbRs+2FYM9qynADAAaQRDMI7MST+B03HGH+2gZ3 YMWF6qKszfCu37835gxLlbhgMtfb9k7XaVJvwV1BGqkT4nGVNauID281nOCnoxxIqS3dMJAlu HeUI0kIu0vS5s4hnzU9NjdIpcFoLhv3dNRBTWgl2PpYB2/CM9S26o5Y62QSBRaUfaqtOzkwxt EfofdJj5FFqt40xKafhuSpa1/Ev4lmZca7kTdLJ6wLewg7e872Vh9r5i7Tf2pdgtw6pPa9dYu DQFSVbOitP0L4XNPEcU2hwHaXt0yu3oN3ejkfmKwiwryTmNWILGWGnK4W6cHrTPH+JfLcHZaJ S/8RtNbBdz1TTEHtyhxj8Pz1Q65JCjm0fotK+COcJSiqcL34V9FOv/Ztj9kjNvPZFpca4dzU9 f3FEJFkFY8twRYYIOZ3WXhwid7g= Subject: Re: [NNagain] Small ISP Carve Out X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:00:39 -0000 Hi Mr. Photons > On Oct 18, 2023, at 09:08, le berger des photons via Nnagain = wrote: >=20 > but an ISP and its clients should be able to agree together on = anything which they feel works for them. The only rule that I see that = should apply is that there should be proper disclosure. This rule = already exists. It is contract law. All of this regulation would make = it impossible for an Isp and its customers to do something that they = all WANT to do.=20 [SM] At the heart of the NN dispute is, that some ISPs clearly = did something only they wanted to do and which their customers disagreed = with. This does not apply to all ISPs and all customers, but there = clearly was abuse and hence reactive regulation... if the market players = do not behave well enough by themselves, they risk the referee stepping = in, so business as usual. >=20 > That would be like them deciding to dump their waste oil all over the = ground IF they had their own planet. Though that would be perhaps = stupid, all of the affected people agree to it, they should be able to = do it. It's THEIR planet! [SM] This approach might work for agreements between equal = partners, but history/experience shows that if one side has considerably = more leverage it is likely to abuse that leverage. There is a reason why = most human societies implement some "fairness" rules and try to enforce = those. (Often "fairness" is restricted to small subsets of the = population, but still the principle itself seems universal or terran). Regards Sebastian >=20 > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:45=E2=80=AFPM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain = wrote: > =E2=80=9CSmall Broadband Providers Urge FCC to Leave Them Out of Some = Net Neutrality Rules=E2=80=9D See = https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/10/small-broadband-providers-urge-fcc-= to-leave-them-out-of-some-net-neutrality-rules/. My personal opinion is = any rules should apply to all providers. After all, my locally-owned = small car mechanic does not get to opt out of EPA rules for used motor = oil disposal since they are small and have 4 employees and small organic = farms don=E2=80=99t get to opt out of food safety rules or labeling. >=20 > =20 >=20 > JL >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain