One thing is certain. This is a jobs program for lawyers. It'll be a career year for my lawyer friends in this business.
Patrick Leary M 727.501.3735 [cid:image002.png@01D05CC5.1C0AFFE0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of James Howard Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:47 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading If a practice is primarily motivated by such an other justification, such as a practice that permits different levels of network access for similarly situated users based solely on the particular plan to which the user has subscribed,558 then that practice will not be considered under this exception. I'm sure that I am not reading everything in this document "correctly" but that section in bold seems to indicate that it would be allowed to limit something such as streaming video to SD BUT it would have to be on all offered plans and would need to be all streaming video, not just Youtube. The first thing I thought when I read that section was that customers (if they see this part or hear about it) are going to expect all plans to be the same speed. Of course, what the customer expects and what is reality are often not the same thing. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:35 AM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Not so sure about that Jon. Pushing it down to merely SD is not blocking or otherwise rendering the traffic "unusable." SD is perfectly usable, though consumer might not find it desirable. I think a wireless provider can make an effective case for forcing streaming to SD under the "management" clauses of this order, because it is an action taken to preserve the ability of all subscribers to have useable connections. Patrick Leary M 727.501.3735 [cid:image003.png@01D05CC5.1C0AFFE0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jon Auer Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:29 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading "The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content." Seems pretty clear. I have a competitor that was using a Procera device to degrade Youtube by throttling streams back to SD (though it seems like they stopped sometime since I last checked the Youtube VQR). Seems like that wouldn't be considered reasonable network management under this. On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote: Not sure why. If you talk to the man on the street, they're going to interpret this as "everyone should get 1 Gbps to every device in the nation", and that the cost should be $9.99 per month. That's not the reality. So in reality, ISPs will continue to do bandwidth management to accommodate what is actually possible on a case-by-case basis. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 3/12/2015 9:12 AM, Chuck McCown wrote: Procera is gonna hate this I think. From: Chuck McCown<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: [AFMUG] Light Reading Something to do this weekend. ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login<https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=litewire.net> To: ja...@litewire.net<https://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=242260993&domain=litewire.net> From: 0000014c0ed65728-f6dc8d17-7b1f-4864-be2a-2018e4a781e8-000...@amazonses.com<https://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=3130435799&domain=litewire.net> Remove<https://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2&un-wl-sender-domain=1&rID=242260993&aID=3130435799&domain=litewire.net> amazonses.com from my allow list You received this message because the domain amazonses.com is on your allow list. ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************
