My opinion, from running an ISP for 29 years, is that Net Neutrality and Title II are really good for smaller independent providers like my company.
We’re not big enough to force Netflix and Youtube to pay us. Our customers will always have to cover our costs, pay our salaries. But we have to compete with big corporate ISPs, who'll be able to subsidize customer fees with their other deals. And deals may involve exclusivity; I’d be surprised if they don’t. The industry has been moving towards more openness under Title II rules. Now it could go the other way. I hate how the NFL is exclusive and our customers have trouble watching games unless they have cable subscriptions. Game of Thrones used to be that way too. Why go back? Not even to mention that taking stands in favor of Net Neutrality and an open, competitive internet with privacy protections is the right thing to do. I believe it’s the way our industry should work. Those principles are popular with our customers, too, which is a marketing advantage. It’s one of the way we set ourselves apart from big corporations. But most of all, I object to how the decision was made on WISPA’s official stance., The WISPA chair, who I think is a great guy, spoke for WISPA without asking the membership and having a discussion about it — at least I never saw any requests for input. I think a lot of us, as entrepreneurs, are suspicious of regulations. And maybe that overrides everything else. But in this case the regulations protect us. I would have liked to at least have had that conversation. I’m going to write the larger WISPA list about it. —Peggy Dolgenos, Cruzio Internet > On Dec 19, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Kees H <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have had one guy complain multiple times to the FCC because he couldn't > get to a website. We had no problem getting to the website. The time and > hassle to respond to the complaint..... He is no longer one of our > customers. > > Being a wireless ISP I can not give a blanket guaranty of speed nor > latency. Hence our 'up-to" speeds > To be required to give a report regarding that, as was the discussion a > while back, seems an impossible task for us and has nothing to do with net > neutrality. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Nickerson > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 3:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [California] Net Neutrality and WISPA members > > Hi > > I find it interesting that we all seem to believe in, and support an > Internet where our customers can get the same Mbps throughput to Netflix > or hulu that they would pull from elsewhere, like getting linux .iso's > from ftp.cd-rom.com or what have you. Its just some think a regulatory > structure is needed to help with that, and others that is not the way It > might be best for all of us to have a read of the 1934 act, and the > subsequent 1996 amendment. > > Its not that long IIRC . Personally, I'd like Internet packets treated > as a telecommunications service, with more privacy protections, and not > as an information service, like television broadcasting. I also like the > rules forcing bell operators to have quality standards, like defined > turn around times on support tickets, tarif'd rates and wholesale > requirements. Common carrier rules too... > > Has anyone been fined or any headache from this they can point to? Form > 477 mapping aggravation aside, which would be with you however the > regulatory climate is. > > Or is it just a mistrust of government? > > Take Care > > RAN > > > > On 12/19/2017 3:13 PM, Rick Kunze wrote: >> At 10:01 AM 12/18/2017, you wrote: >>> Agreed! We are avid supporters of NN and the concept of an open internet. >> I'm an avid supporter of an open Internet, which is why I'm against NN. >> >> Interesting contrast isn't it? >> >> Rk >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> California mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california > > -- > Robert Nickerson > UCD Class of 1996 > CEO, Om Networks > > cell: 5308483865 > www.omsoft.com > > _______________________________________________ > California mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california > > _______________________________________________ > California mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california _______________________________________________ California mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california
