-----Original Message-----
From: Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Dana Spiegel; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net; Jim Henry
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was:
Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
I realy dont see the need for an ISP to promote one set of
voip over another as a matter of course. How does it serve
any of the stake holders?
Granted there may be times of crisis when demand is very
high, and there is not enough pipe to go around. Any fool can
see that priority should be given to emergency calls exchange
'999' and 'x11' in these cases. The unwillingness of verizon
to allow anyone access to the 911 system results in me having
to dial around it most of the time, i often call my local
precinct on its 718.xxx.xxxx number...
I would say that non-emergency voip links should be given
round-robin priority, such that a user who picks up every
minute and hits redial will soon get through regardless of
who the voip carrier is, remain network neutral. Granted
there may be a higher bandwidth cost of routing some other
companies voip packets rather than using your own compressed
data streams, some disparity may be in the interests of all.
Ultimately some segment of the market is likely to demand
neutrality of providers in the end. But it would be nice to
be a consultant in a position to point a client company to an
ISP and say, these guys are commited to as level a playing
field as servs everyone's interests. EULAs that prohibited
use of wireless technology prevented me from recomending
verizon or cablevision for example.
What I am truly against is the practice of failing to promote
a 'rival' voip packets to provide QOS when QOS will not
threaten network capacity. Or worse yet, expressly delaying
or mangling the rival voip packets. This subtle sabotage is
unlikely to do anyone any good. The average consumer is
likely to be driven away from voip, because the issues
involved are too complicated to deal with. With less VOIP
demand, there will not be the increase in bandwidth demand
that might be spured by widespread adoption of voice and
subsequently video over IP.
In short network non-neurtrality (network hostility) is an
ill-wind that blows no one any good.
By publicly considering making non-neutrality Standard
Operating Procedure some large polygopolies are tempting
legislation that restricts the way in which all ISPs are able
to do buisness. Outside restrictions on the way one does
buisness never seem to help. If nothing else: Laissez Faire,
laissez aller, laissez passer. By abusing or considering the
abuse of a freedom that they have always had large telcos
jeopardise that very freedom. Surely this cannot be good for
anyone's bottom line?
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:42:23 -0500 (EST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net, Jim Henry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was:
Multichannel News
-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Dana Spiegel wrote:
And here is where we have the astroturf statements. Network
Neutrality IS NOT regulation of the internet. It is a means of
PRESERVING internet freedom.
This doublespeak is being promoted solely by telcos and their
astroturf organizations. Private individuals have not been
concerned
with attacking Net Neutrality. However astroturf
organizations have
been able to mis-represent Net Neutrality as government
regulation.
It is not. The ONLY people who benefit from NOT having Net
Neutrality
are the telcos and the cablecos. Private individuals and most
business BENEFIT from having Net Neutrality.
Who said?
As an ISP, I am *against* any kind of net neutrality that
would apply
to my network. I don't want government to tell me what I
can and what
I cannot do with my customer's traffic. Yes, most likely, I
will not
touch any kind of packets, but if I choose to give higher
priority on
*my* IP network to PilosoftVOIP packets, I should have this choice.
If your suggestion is that "Net Neutrality" should only
apply to ILECs
and cablecos - oh I'm all for it...But it kind of seems unfair,
doesn't it? Not being a biggest fan of the incumbents, it does seem
somewhat silly to hamstring them.
The "right" thing of course would be to reverse the TRO and mandate
ILECs to provide unmolested layer2 DSL transport to
third-parties. But
that battle seems to be lost.
Possibly, the only condition when net neutrality makes
(sort of) sense
is that ILEC would have to choose between providing access to
competitors like us, or to be bound by net neutrality provisions.
--
Alex Pilosov | DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services
President | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877-PILOSOFT x601
Pilosoft, Inc. | http://www.pilosoft.com
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe:
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Microsoft: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
Linux: Where do you want to go today?
BSD: Are you guys coming, or what?
Robin-David Hammond KB3IEN
www.aresnyc.org.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release
Date: 3/17/2006
