nanog mailing list archives
Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:50:27 +0200 (CEST)
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Keith Mitchell wrote:
to violating the principle of net neutrality. Almost always NATed,
I've been told that quite a lot of the GPRS equipment can't handle being put on the "internet" without a FW or NAT box in front of it. The background noise from scans etc takes quite a big toll on the gateways. This is of course due to manufacturers of said equipment still is ruled by people that do not understand what the internet really is.
Also, if you're a customer to these services and pay per usage, you probably do not want to pay for background noise reaching your terminal, and since it's low bw (12kilobit/s or so for GSM) you don't want it from a performance point of view either.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal, (continued)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Seth Johnson (Jul 10)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Florian Weimer (Jul 11)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Mark Newton (Jul 11)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Florian Weimer (Jul 11)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Mark Newton (Jul 11)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Florian Weimer (Jul 11)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Mark Newton (Jul 11)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Florian Weimer (Jul 11)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Mark Newton (Jul 11)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Keith Mitchell (Jul 12)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 12)
- RE: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Joe Johnson (Jul 11)
- Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal Florian Weimer (Jul 11)
