<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Knapp is right, there are apps with special requirements</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/knapp-is-right-there-are-apps-with-special-requirements/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/knapp-is-right-there-are-apps-with-special-requirements/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=knapp-is-right-there-are-apps-with-special-requirements</link>
	<description>Pro-Culture, Pro-Commerce</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 00:48:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Digital Society &#187; Blog Archive &#187; BitTorrent would rather be selfish than friendly</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/knapp-is-right-there-are-apps-with-special-requirements/comment-page-1/#comment-5052</link>
		<dc:creator>Digital Society &#187; Blog Archive &#187; BitTorrent would rather be selfish than friendly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:17:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitalsociety.org/?p=1239#comment-5052</guid>
		<description>[...]  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Ou</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/knapp-is-right-there-are-apps-with-special-requirements/comment-page-1/#comment-1513</link>
		<dc:creator>George Ou</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitalsociety.org/?p=1239#comment-1513</guid>
		<description>The NPRM is saying that it believes these restrictive rules would be good, but they&#039;re willing to consider additional arguments.  The current draft in fact does prohibit good network management and does prohibit protecting things like VoIP.
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/fcc-nprm-prohibits-good-network-management/

So unless the FCC is convinced to write in an exception for giving low bandwidth applications higher priority, it will be voted on in its current form.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NPRM is saying that it believes these restrictive rules would be good, but they&#8217;re willing to consider additional arguments.  The current draft in fact does prohibit good network management and does prohibit protecting things like VoIP.<br />
<a href="http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/fcc-nprm-prohibits-good-network-management/" rel="nofollow">http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/fcc-nprm-prohibits-good-network-management/</a></p>
<p>So unless the FCC is convinced to write in an exception for giving low bandwidth applications higher priority, it will be voted on in its current form.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/knapp-is-right-there-are-apps-with-special-requirements/comment-page-1/#comment-1507</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitalsociety.org/?p=1239#comment-1507</guid>
		<description>We&#039;re &lt;strong&gt;still&lt;/strong&gt; pretending that the FCC doesn&#039;t know what QoS is? 

The NPRM as it presently stands does NOT prohibit prioritization and good network management.  The post you link to is deeply misleading.  Rather, the NPRM seeks comment on the bounds of what QoS measures constitute reasonable network management. If in that post you quoted the next sentence (&quot;We seek comment on whether these and other potential approaches to addressing congestion would be reasonable&quot;) it&#039;s made very clear that they&#039;re layout out two argumentative extremes and asking interested parties to submit relevant comments.  I don&#039;t see why you&#039;re pretending otherwise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;re <strong>still</strong> pretending that the FCC doesn&#8217;t know what QoS is? </p>
<p>The NPRM as it presently stands does NOT prohibit prioritization and good network management.  The post you link to is deeply misleading.  Rather, the NPRM seeks comment on the bounds of what QoS measures constitute reasonable network management. If in that post you quoted the next sentence (&#8220;We seek comment on whether these and other potential approaches to addressing congestion would be reasonable&#8221;) it&#8217;s made very clear that they&#8217;re layout out two argumentative extremes and asking interested parties to submit relevant comments.  I don&#8217;t see why you&#8217;re pretending otherwise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

