It is, I'm playing devil's advocate here :)  I just see the argument for
charging content provider - hopefully things do not go that way on a wide
scale though, as things could get messy for small ISPs.

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote:

> Infrastructure, overheard, maintenance, bandwidth. Should be covered and
> distributed by the customers' monthly fees and any installation fees. If
> it's not, how are you still in business and still expanding?
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2017 4:10 PM, "Jason McKemie" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> There are other costs besides bandwidth.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of
>>> bandwidth has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.
>>>
>>> Jared
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
>>> From: "Jason McKemie" <[email protected]>
>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
>>> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
>>> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson <
>>> [email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver
>>> to them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they
>>> say no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block
>>> you entirely.
>>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
>>> [email protected][mailto:[email protected]]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it
>>> would certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <[email protected][mailto:
>>> [email protected]]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.
>>> Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Jason McKemie
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly
>>> rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that
>>> cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP
>>> perception.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
>>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
>>> up the cost of everything.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Mike Hammett
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
>>> [https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+In
>>> telligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/
>>> company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL%5D%5Bhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb%5D%5Bhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions%5D%5Bhttps://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>> ]
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
>>> [https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com
>>> /company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]
>>> The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
>>> [https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtu
>>> be.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> From: "Ron M." <[email protected]>
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP
>>> traffic accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying
>>> THEIR sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>>>  (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
>>> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
>>> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
>>> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
>>> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
>>> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>>>
>>> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
>>> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>> From: "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]>
>>> To: "af" <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted
>>> to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that
>>> anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash
>>> they'd have to deal with.
>>>  Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it...
>>> they'll just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else,
>>> they'll find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and
>>> blame it on the lack of NN.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They
>>> defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons
>>> rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just
>>> clarifying.
>>>
>>> The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from
>>> all the rules.
>>> Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for
>>> you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.
>>>
>>> It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what
>>> would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about
>>> pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>> From: "Dennis Burgess" <[email protected]>
>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>> NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  J
>>> So it really did’ent do anything.
>>>
>>> Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant
>>> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant[http://www.
>>> linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5] – MTCNA, MTCRE,
>>> MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
>>>
>>> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net[http://www.l
>>> inktechs.net/]
>>> Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com[http://w
>>> ww.towercoverage.com/]
>>> Office: 314-735-0270 <(314)%20735-0270>[tel:314-735-0270
>>> <(314)%20735-0270>]
>>> E-Mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
>>> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
>>> To: af <[email protected]>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>> Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutr
>>> ality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html[http
>>> ://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutralit
>>> y_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will do
>>> so with impunity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how poorly
>>> granularity scales.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to put out
>>> a statement..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yep, that is concise and effective
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
>>> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and
>>> individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken  that
>>> promotes  innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In
>>> Aeronet’s  17 years of history, our pricing structure has always been
>>> simple, unlimited and without any toll gates.  The placement and removal of
>>> Net Neutrality rules have not and will not modify our pricing policy.  We
>>> maintain our commitment to provide the fastest and most reliable service to
>>> our customers, with innovative solutions that fulfill our customers needs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>>
>>> President
>>>
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Reply via email to