<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<br>
<br>
On Monday 11 April 2011 11:43 AM, McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTin4xhab-rHHGzw2K+_6rGjYrLehjQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:28 AM, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On Monday 11 April 2011 08:43 AM, McTim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:37 AM, David Allen
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu"><David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu></a> wrote:
On Apr 10, 2011, at 5:23 PM, McTim wrote:
Provenance is never precise, is it. But many (quite well) informed folks,
wrt the US comms policy process, were satisfied that the private
Google-Verizon deal set the terms for what emerged finally at the FCC.
It was the previous multilateral negotiations that formed the basis of
the FCC proposal. It also informed the GV agreement. If you notice,
the most objected to bit of the GV (treat wireless differently) isn't
in the FCC proposal.
It is very much in the FCC proposal, and the most criticized part of it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Perhaps you should read it again:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf">http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf</a>
pages 58-61
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The current NN guidelines were issued by FCC in Dec 2010, where a
differentiation between fixed and mobile Internet is made. The
document you refer to seems to be an old one. parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>