Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Normally the utilities do not own the dirt, they own the poles. So utility ROW access is explicitly called out however that means poles in my view. However, the act makes you a utility so local ROW owners have to give you equal access to the same underground ROWs. From: Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:12 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading I was saying that previously if I wanted all that crap (including pole attachment), I could file to be a CLEC to get that. I didn't want all that crap, so I didn't file. I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Is buried ROW access included or just pole attachments? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 5:08:24 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Nope. No CLEC required. You are already a telecommunications provider by virtue of the new net neutrality regulations. All the benefit, none of the calories. From: Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:07 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading but I get all of the crap of being a CLEC... and more. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Bruce Robertson br...@pooh.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:06:10 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading The point is, now you don't have to go through that hassle. On 03/12/2015 12:45 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Not that exciting as if I wanted those, I'd just file to be a CLEC. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:37:47 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Y’all now have the rights to pole contacts and rights of way. Even though it says ROWs controlled by a utility, I am pretty sure that public entities cannot discriminate against all you telecommunications providers and have to treat you equal to the others. Just cite “network neutrality” rules if they balk. 56. Section 224: Ensuring Infrastructure Access. For broadband Internet access service, we do not forbear from section 224 and the Commission’s associated procedural rules (to the extent they apply to telecommunications carriers and services and are, thus, within the Commission’s forbearance authority).53 Section 224 of the Act governs the Commission’s regulation of pole attachments. In particular, section 224(f)(1) requires utilities to provide cable system operators and telecommunications carriers the right of “nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled” by a utility.54 Access to poles and other infrastructure is crucial to the efficient deployment of communications networks including, and perhaps especially, new entrants. !DSPAM:2,5501ecfa184921480014006!
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
I asked because most people around here don't use the poles. Power company and in some areas cable+phone, but not everywhere and data guys rarely (exception Windstream) use the poles. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 11:33:58 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Normally the utilities do not own the dirt, they own the poles. So utility ROW access is explicitly called out however that means poles in my view. However, the act makes you a utility so local ROW owners have to give you equal access to the same underground ROWs. From: Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:12 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading I was saying that previously if I wanted all that crap (including pole attachment), I could file to be a CLEC to get that. I didn't want all that crap, so I didn't file. I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Is buried ROW access included or just pole attachments? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 5:08:24 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Nope. No CLEC required. You are already a telecommunications provider by virtue of the new net neutrality regulations. All the benefit, none of the calories. From: Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:07 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading but I get all of the crap of being a CLEC... and more. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bruce Robertson br...@pooh.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:06:10 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading The point is, now you don't have to go through that hassle. On 03/12/2015 12:45 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Not that exciting as if I wanted those, I'd just file to be a CLEC. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:37:47 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Y’all now have the rights to pole contacts and rights of way. Even though it says ROWs controlled by a utility, I am pretty sure that public entities cannot discriminate against all you telecommunications providers and have to treat you equal to the others. Just cite “network neutrality” rules if they balk. 56. Section 224: Ensuring Infrastructure Access. For broadband Internet access service, we do not forbear from section 224 and the Commission’s associated procedural rules (to the extent they apply to telecommunications carriers and services and are, thus, within the Commission’s forbearance authority).53 Section 224 of the Act governs the Commission’s regulation of pole attachments. In particular, section 224(f)(1) requires utilities to provide cable system operators and telecommunications carriers the right of “nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled” by a utility.54 Access to poles and other infrastructure is crucial to the efficient deployment of communications networks including, and perhaps especially, new entrants. !DSPAM:2,5501ecfa184921480014006!
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
I am offended that Netflix, Verizon, Comcast, and ATT all get
mentioned, but there is no mention of me. They burned 400 pages worth
of electrons, and they can't acknowledge the existence of smaller providers?
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 8:59 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Something to do this weekend.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Procera is gonna hate this I think. From: Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Light Reading Something to do this weekend.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Only exempt from parts of it. Steve Coran has posted several highlights and brief explanations on the WISPA members list. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:18:27 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Page 9, Paragraph 24: systems with fewer than 100,000 subscribers are temporarily exempt from this thing. December 15 2015 temporary might become permanent. From: Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:12 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Procera is gonna hate this I think. From: Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Light Reading Something to do this weekend.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Page 9, Paragraph 24: systems with fewer than 100,000 subscribers are temporarily exempt from this thing. December 15 2015 temporary might become permanent. From: Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:12 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Procera is gonna hate this I think. From: Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Light Reading Something to do this weekend.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Temporarily is a good word.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 9:18 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Page 9, Paragraph 24: systems with fewer than 100,000 subscribers are
temporarily exempt from this thing.
December 15 2015 temporary might become permanent.
*From:* Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:12 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Procera is gonna hate this I think.
*From:* Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Light Reading
Something to do this weekend.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Not so sure about that Jon. Pushing it down to merely SD is not blocking or
otherwise rendering the traffic unusable. SD is perfectly usable, though
consumer might not find it desirable. I think a wireless provider can make an
effective case for forcing streaming to SD under the management clauses of
this order, because it is an action taken to preserve the ability of all
subscribers to have useable connections.
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D05CC0.9A7C54A0]http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jon Auer
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:29 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations
of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all
of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the
no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not
technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on
source, destination, or content.
Seems pretty clear.
I have a competitor that was using a Procera device to degrade Youtube by
throttling streams back to SD (though it seems like they stopped sometime since
I last checked the Youtube VQR). Seems like that wouldn't be considered
reasonable network management under this.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Bill Prince
part15...@gmail.commailto:part15...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why.
If you talk to the man on the street, they're going to interpret this as
everyone should get 1 Gbps to every device in the nation, and that the cost
should be $9.99 per month.
That's not the reality. So in reality, ISPs will continue to do bandwidth
management to accommodate what is actually possible on a case-by-case basis.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 9:12 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Procera is gonna hate this I think.
From: Chuck McCownmailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Something to do this weekend.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable
expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that
promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship
designed to avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an
application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the
degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content.
Seems pretty clear.
I have a competitor that was using a Procera device to degrade Youtube by
throttling streams back to SD (though it seems like they stopped sometime
since I last checked the Youtube VQR). Seems like that wouldn't be
considered reasonable network management under this.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why.
If you talk to the man on the street, they're going to interpret this as
everyone should get 1 Gbps to every device in the nation, and that the
cost should be $9.99 per month.
That's not the reality. So in reality, ISPs will continue to do bandwidth
management to accommodate what is actually possible on a case-by-case basis.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 9:12 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Procera is gonna hate this I think.
*From:* Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Light Reading
Something to do this weekend.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Not sure why.
If you talk to the man on the street, they're going to interpret this as
everyone should get 1 Gbps to every device in the nation, and that the
cost should be $9.99 per month.
That's not the reality. So in reality, ISPs will continue to do
bandwidth management to accommodate what is actually possible on a
case-by-case basis.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 9:12 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Procera is gonna hate this I think.
*From:* Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Light Reading
Something to do this weekend.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
If a practice is primarily motivated by such an other justification, such as a
practice that permits different levels of network access for similarly situated
users based solely on the particular plan to which the user has subscribed,558
then that practice will not be considered under this exception.
I'm sure that I am not reading everything in this document correctly but that
section in bold seems to indicate that it would be allowed to limit something
such as streaming video to SD BUT it would have to be on all offered plans and
would need to be all streaming video, not just Youtube.
The first thing I thought when I read that section was that customers (if they
see this part or hear about it) are going to expect all plans to be the same
speed. Of course, what the customer expects and what is reality are often not
the same thing.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:35 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Not so sure about that Jon. Pushing it down to merely SD is not blocking or
otherwise rendering the traffic unusable. SD is perfectly usable, though
consumer might not find it desirable. I think a wireless provider can make an
effective case for forcing streaming to SD under the management clauses of
this order, because it is an action taken to preserve the ability of all
subscribers to have useable connections.
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D05CBA.3E72AE80]http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jon Auer
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:29 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations
of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all
of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the
no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not
technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on
source, destination, or content.
Seems pretty clear.
I have a competitor that was using a Procera device to degrade Youtube by
throttling streams back to SD (though it seems like they stopped sometime since
I last checked the Youtube VQR). Seems like that wouldn't be considered
reasonable network management under this.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Bill Prince
part15...@gmail.commailto:part15...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why.
If you talk to the man on the street, they're going to interpret this as
everyone should get 1 Gbps to every device in the nation, and that the cost
should be $9.99 per month.
That's not the reality. So in reality, ISPs will continue to do bandwidth
management to accommodate what is actually possible on a case-by-case basis.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 9:12 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Procera is gonna hate this I think.
From: Chuck McCownmailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Something to do this weekend.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
Total Control Panel
Loginhttps://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=litewire.net
To:
ja...@litewire.nethttps://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=242260993domain=litewire.net
From:
014c0ed65728-f6dc8d17-7b1f-4864-be2a-2018e4a781e8-000...@amazonses.comhttps://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=3130435799domain=litewire.net
Removehttps://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2un-wl-sender-domain=1rID=242260993aID=3130435799domain=litewire.net
amazonses.com from my allow list
You received this message because the domain amazonses.com is on your allow
list.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
One thing is certain. This is a jobs program for lawyers. It'll be a career
year for my lawyer friends in this business.
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D05CC5.1C0AFFE0]http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of James Howard
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
If a practice is primarily motivated by such an other justification, such as a
practice that permits different levels of network access for similarly situated
users based solely on the particular plan to which the user has subscribed,558
then that practice will not be considered under this exception.
I'm sure that I am not reading everything in this document correctly but that
section in bold seems to indicate that it would be allowed to limit something
such as streaming video to SD BUT it would have to be on all offered plans and
would need to be all streaming video, not just Youtube.
The first thing I thought when I read that section was that customers (if they
see this part or hear about it) are going to expect all plans to be the same
speed. Of course, what the customer expects and what is reality are often not
the same thing.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:35 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Not so sure about that Jon. Pushing it down to merely SD is not blocking or
otherwise rendering the traffic unusable. SD is perfectly usable, though
consumer might not find it desirable. I think a wireless provider can make an
effective case for forcing streaming to SD under the management clauses of
this order, because it is an action taken to preserve the ability of all
subscribers to have useable connections.
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image003.png@01D05CC5.1C0AFFE0]http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jon Auer
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:29 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations
of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all
of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the
no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not
technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on
source, destination, or content.
Seems pretty clear.
I have a competitor that was using a Procera device to degrade Youtube by
throttling streams back to SD (though it seems like they stopped sometime since
I last checked the Youtube VQR). Seems like that wouldn't be considered
reasonable network management under this.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Bill Prince
part15...@gmail.commailto:part15...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why.
If you talk to the man on the street, they're going to interpret this as
everyone should get 1 Gbps to every device in the nation, and that the cost
should be $9.99 per month.
That's not the reality. So in reality, ISPs will continue to do bandwidth
management to accommodate what is actually possible on a case-by-case basis.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 9:12 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Procera is gonna hate this I think.
From: Chuck McCownmailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Something to do this weekend.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
Total Control Panel
Loginhttps://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=litewire.net
To:
ja...@litewire.nethttps://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=242260993domain=litewire.net
From:
014c0ed65728-f6dc8d17-7b1f-4864-be2a-2018e4a781e8-000...@amazonses.comhttps://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=3130435799domain=litewire.net
Removehttps://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2un-wl-sender-domain=1rID=242260993aID=3130435799domain=litewire.net
amazonses.com from my allow list
You received this message because the domain amazonses.com is on your allow
list.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
I may have to rethink my QoS set up. If I set my L7 rules behind my general
traffic rules they don't work.
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Put your layer 7 rules at the very end of your list. Use them to create
connection marks that they apply higher in the list.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:25:37 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The flip side of this, I've experimented with Netflix on the PS3 and PC quite
a bit on my home router. As a result, I've set L7 tagging and QoS rules to keep
Netflix from going nuts while preventing buffering on my edge router.
My config essentially guaranteed 3Mbps for streaming video, but limited it to
a max of 3Mbps. Problem I run into is I need a hotter router.
Depending on the interpretation, my QoS rule that improves streaming video
could be construed as throttling.
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Not so sure about that Jon. Pushing it down to merely SD is not blocking or
otherwise rendering the traffic unusable. SD is perfectly usable, though
consumer might not find it desirable. I think a wireless provider can make an
effective case for forcing streaming to SD under the management clauses of
this order, because it is an action taken to preserve the ability of all
subscribers to have useable connections.
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jon Auer
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:29 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable
expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises
access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to
avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application
effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of
Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content.
Seems pretty clear.
I have a competitor that was using a Procera device to degrade Youtube by
throttling streams back to SD (though it seems like they stopped sometime since
I last checked the Youtube VQR). Seems like that wouldn't be considered
reasonable network management under this.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why.
If you talk to the man on the street, they're going to interpret this as
everyone should get 1 Gbps to every device in the nation, and that the cost
should be $9.99 per month.
That's not the reality. So in reality, ISPs will continue to do bandwidth
management to accommodate what is actually possible on a case-by-case basis.
bppart15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 3/12/2015 9:12 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Procera is gonna hate this I think.
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Something to do this weekend.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Not that exciting as if I wanted those, I'd just file to be a CLEC. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:37:47 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Y’all now have the rights to pole contacts and rights of way. Even though it says ROWs controlled by a utility, I am pretty sure that public entities cannot discriminate against all you telecommunications providers and have to treat you equal to the others. Just cite “network neutrality” rules if they balk. 56. Section 224: Ensuring Infrastructure Access. For broadband Internet access service, we do not forbear from section 224 and the Commission’s associated procedural rules (to the extent they apply to telecommunications carriers and services and are, thus, within the Commission’s forbearance authority).53 Section 224 of the Act governs the Commission’s regulation of pole attachments. In particular, section 224(f)(1) requires utilities to provide cable system operators and telecommunications carriers the right of “nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled” by a utility.54 Access to poles and other infrastructure is crucial to the efficient deployment of communications networks including, and perhaps especially, new entrants.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Y’all now have the rights to pole contacts and rights of way. Even though it says ROWs controlled by a utility, I am pretty sure that public entities cannot discriminate against all you telecommunications providers and have to treat you equal to the others. Just cite “network neutrality” rules if they balk. 56. Section 224: Ensuring Infrastructure Access. For broadband Internet access service, we do not forbear from section 224 and the Commission’s associated procedural rules (to the extent they apply to telecommunications carriers and services and are, thus, within the Commission’s forbearance authority).53 Section 224 of the Act governs the Commission’s regulation of pole attachments. In particular, section 224(f)(1) requires utilities to provide cable system operators and telecommunications carriers the right of “nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled” by a utility.54 Access to poles and other infrastructure is crucial to the efficient deployment of communications networks including, and perhaps especially, new entrants.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Ah yes, the dreaded doomaflotchy.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
There will have to be some cost of entry, otherwise every Tom, Dick,
Harry is going to call him/herself an internet provider so that s/he can
hang his/her doomaflotchy on a pole.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 1:06 PM, Bruce Robertson wrote:
The point is, now you don't have to go through that hassle.
On 03/12/2015 12:45 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Not that exciting as if I wanted those, I'd just file to be a CLEC.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
*From: *Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com ch...@wbmfg.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:37:47 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Y’all now have the rights to pole contacts and rights of way. Even
though it says ROWs controlled by a utility, I am pretty sure that public
entities cannot discriminate against all you telecommunications providers
and have to treat you equal to the others. Just cite “network neutrality”
rules if they balk.
56. Section 224: Ensuring Infrastructure Access. For broadband Internet
access service, we
do not forbear from section 224 and the Commission’s associated procedural
rules (to the extent they
apply to telecommunications carriers and services and are, thus, within
the Commission’s forbearance
authority).53 Section 224 of the Act governs the Commission’s regulation
of pole attachments. In
particular, section 224(f)(1) requires utilities to provide cable system
operators and telecommunications
carriers the right of “nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct,
conduit, or right-of-way owned or
controlled” by a utility.54 Access to poles and other infrastructure is
crucial to the efficient deployment of
communications networks including, and perhaps especially, new entrants.
!DSPAM:2,5501ecfa184921480014006!
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The point is, now you don't have to go through that hassle. On 03/12/2015 12:45 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Not that exciting as if I wanted those, I'd just file to be a CLEC. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:37:47 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Y’all now have the rights to pole contacts and rights of way. Even though it says ROWs controlled by a utility, I am pretty sure that public entities cannot discriminate against all you telecommunications providers and have to treat you equal to the others. Just cite “network neutrality” rules if they balk. 56. Section 224: Ensuring Infrastructure Access. For broadband Internet access service, we do not forbear from section 224 and the Commission’s associated procedural rules (to the extent they apply to telecommunications carriers and services and are, thus, within the Commission’s forbearance authority).53 Section 224 of the Act governs the Commission’s regulation of pole attachments. In particular, section 224(f)(1) requires utilities to provide cable system operators and telecommunications carriers the right of “nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled” by a utility.54 Access to poles and other infrastructure is crucial to the efficient deployment of communications networks including, and perhaps especially, new entrants. !DSPAM:2,5501ecfa184921480014006!
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
There will have to be some cost of entry, otherwise every Tom, Dick,
Harry is going to call him/herself an internet provider so that s/he can
hang his/her doomaflotchy on a pole.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 1:06 PM, Bruce Robertson wrote:
The point is, now you don't have to go through that hassle.
On 03/12/2015 12:45 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Not that exciting as if I wanted those, I'd just file to be a CLEC.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
*From: *Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:37:47 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Y’all now have the rights to pole contacts and rights of way. Even
though it says ROWs controlled by a utility, I am pretty sure that
public entities cannot discriminate against all you
telecommunications providers and have to treat you equal to the
others. Just cite “network neutrality” rules if they balk.
56. Section 224: Ensuring Infrastructure Access. For broadband
Internet access service, we
do not forbear from section 224 and the Commission’s associated
procedural rules (to the extent they
apply to telecommunications carriers and services and are, thus,
within the Commission’s forbearance
authority).53 Section 224 of the Act governs the Commission’s
regulation of pole attachments. In
particular, section 224(f)(1) requires utilities to provide cable
system operators and telecommunications
carriers the right of “nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct,
conduit, or right-of-way owned or
controlled” by a utility.54 Access to poles and other infrastructure
is crucial to the efficient deployment of
communications networks including, and perhaps especially, new entrants.
!DSPAM:2,5501ecfa184921480014006!
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The flip side of this, I've experimented with Netflix on the PS3 and PC quite a
bit on my home router. As a result, I've set L7 tagging and QoS rules to keep
Netflix from going nuts while preventing buffering on my edge router.
My config essentially guaranteed 3Mbps for streaming video, but limited it to a
max of 3Mbps. Problem I run into is I need a hotter router.
Depending on the interpretation, my QoS rule that improves streaming video
could be construed as throttling.
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Not so sure about that Jon. Pushing it down to merely SD is not blocking or
otherwise rendering the traffic unusable. SD is perfectly usable, though
consumer might not find it desirable. I think a wireless provider can make an
effective case for forcing streaming to SD under the management clauses of
this order, because it is an action taken to preserve the ability of all
subscribers to have useable connections.
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jon Auer
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:29 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable
expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises
access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to
avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application
effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of
Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content.
Seems pretty clear.
I have a competitor that was using a Procera device to degrade Youtube by
throttling streams back to SD (though it seems like they stopped sometime since
I last checked the Youtube VQR). Seems like that wouldn't be considered
reasonable network management under this.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why.
If you talk to the man on the street, they're going to interpret this as
everyone should get 1 Gbps to every device in the nation, and that the cost
should be $9.99 per month.
That's not the reality. So in reality, ISPs will continue to do bandwidth
management to accommodate what is actually possible on a case-by-case basis.
bppart15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 3/12/2015 9:12 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Procera is gonna hate this I think.
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Something to do this weekend.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
We are preparing to implement port 25 blocking
Aside from the fact that we are so small as to not even be a blip, this is
technically now a protected service?
Verizon does it on DSL, will they have to pull the filters?
I would hope this is covered under effective network managment as it
partially eliminates illegal traffic, while still leaving equally similar
pathways for legitimate traffic on othe rports or protocols.
But then the problem comes in of SLA customers that it is open to, would
that not be considered paid for prioritization of similar service (fast
lane)?
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Patrick Leary patrick.le...@telrad.com
wrote:
One thing is certain. This is a jobs program for lawyers. It'll be a
career year for my lawyer friends in this business.
*Patrick Leary*
*M* 727.501.3735
http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *James Howard
*Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:47 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
*If a practice is primarily motivated by such an other justification, such
as a practice that permits different levels of network access for similarly
situated users based solely on the particular plan to which the user has
subscribed,**558 **then that practice will not be considered under this
exception.*
I’m sure that I am not reading everything in this document “correctly” but
that section in bold seems to indicate that it would be allowed to limit
something such as streaming video to SD BUT it would have to be on all
offered plans and would need to be all streaming video, not just Youtube.
The first thing I thought when I read that section was that customers (if
they see this part or hear about it) are going to expect all plans to be
the same speed. Of course, what the customer expects and what is reality
are often not the same thing.
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *Patrick Leary
*Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:35 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Not so sure about that Jon. Pushing it down to merely SD is not blocking
or otherwise rendering the traffic unusable. SD is perfectly usable,
though consumer might not find it desirable. I think a wireless provider
can make an effective case for forcing streaming to SD under the
management clauses of this order, because it is an action taken to
preserve the ability of all subscribers to have useable connections.
*Patrick Leary*
*M* 727.501.3735
http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *Jon Auer
*Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:29 PM
*To:* Animal Farm
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable
expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that
promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship
designed to avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an
application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the
degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content.
Seems pretty clear.
I have a competitor that was using a Procera device to degrade Youtube by
throttling streams back to SD (though it seems like they stopped sometime
since I last checked the Youtube VQR). Seems like that wouldn't be
considered reasonable network management under this.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why.
If you talk to the man on the street, they're going to interpret this as
everyone should get 1 Gbps to every device in the nation, and that the
cost should be $9.99 per month.
That's not the reality. So in reality, ISPs will continue to do bandwidth
management to accommodate what is actually possible on a case-by-case basis.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 9:12 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Procera is gonna hate this I think.
*From:* Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Light Reading
Something to do this weekend.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
--
*Total Control Panel*
Login https://asp.reflexion.net/login
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Put your layer 7 rules at the very end of your list. Use them to create
connection marks that they apply higher in the list.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:25:37 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The flip side of this, I've experimented with Netflix on the PS3 and PC quite a
bit on my home router. As a result, I've set L7 tagging and QoS rules to keep
Netflix from going nuts while preventing buffering on my edge router.
My config essentially guaranteed 3Mbps for streaming video, but limited it to a
max of 3Mbps. Problem I run into is I need a hotter router.
Depending on the interpretation, my QoS rule that improves streaming video
could be construed as throttling.
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Not so sure about that Jon. Pushing it down to merely SD is not blocking or
otherwise rendering the traffic unusable. SD is perfectly usable, though
consumer might not find it desirable. I think a wireless provider can make an
effective case for forcing streaming to SD under the management clauses of
this order, because it is an action taken to preserve the ability of all
subscribers to have useable connections.
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jon Auer
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:29 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations
of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all
of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the
no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not
technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on
source, destination, or content.
Seems pretty clear.
I have a competitor that was using a Procera device to degrade Youtube by
throttling streams back to SD (though it seems like they stopped sometime since
I last checked the Youtube VQR). Seems like that wouldn't be considered
reasonable network management under this.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure why.
If you talk to the man on the street, they're going to interpret this as
everyone should get 1 Gbps to every device in the nation, and that the cost
should be $9.99 per month.
That's not the reality. So in reality, ISPs will continue to do bandwidth
management to accommodate what is actually possible on a case-by-case basis.
bp part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 9:12 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
blockquote
Procera is gonna hate this I think.
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:59 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Something to do this weekend.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
viruses.
/blockquote
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Nope. No CLEC required. You are already a telecommunications provider by virtue of the new net neutrality regulations. All the benefit, none of the calories. From: Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:07 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading but I get all of the crap of being a CLEC... and more. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Bruce Robertson br...@pooh.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:06:10 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading The point is, now you don't have to go through that hassle. On 03/12/2015 12:45 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Not that exciting as if I wanted those, I'd just file to be a CLEC. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:37:47 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Y’all now have the rights to pole contacts and rights of way. Even though it says ROWs controlled by a utility, I am pretty sure that public entities cannot discriminate against all you telecommunications providers and have to treat you equal to the others. Just cite “network neutrality” rules if they balk. 56. Section 224: Ensuring Infrastructure Access. For broadband Internet access service, we do not forbear from section 224 and the Commission’s associated procedural rules (to the extent they apply to telecommunications carriers and services and are, thus, within the Commission’s forbearance authority).53 Section 224 of the Act governs the Commission’s regulation of pole attachments. In particular, section 224(f)(1) requires utilities to provide cable system operators and telecommunications carriers the right of “nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled” by a utility.54 Access to poles and other infrastructure is crucial to the efficient deployment of communications networks including, and perhaps especially, new entrants. !DSPAM:2,5501ecfa184921480014006!
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Less filling! Tastes great!
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 3/12/2015 3:08 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
Nope. No CLEC required. You are already a telecommunications
provider by virtue of the new net neutrality regulations. All the
benefit, none of the calories.
*From:* Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net
*Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:07 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
but I get all of the crap of being a CLEC... and more.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
*From: *Bruce Robertson br...@pooh.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:06:10 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
The point is, now you don't have to go through that hassle.
On 03/12/2015 12:45 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Not that exciting as if I wanted those, I'd just file to be a CLEC.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
*From: *Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:37:47 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
Y’all now have the rights to pole contacts and rights of way.
Even though it says ROWs controlled by a utility, I am pretty sure
that public entities cannot discriminate against all you
telecommunications providers and have to treat you equal to the
others. Just cite “network neutrality” rules if they balk.
56. Section 224: Ensuring Infrastructure Access. For broadband
Internet access service, we
do not forbear from section 224 and the Commission’s associated
procedural rules (to the extent they
apply to telecommunications carriers and services and are, thus,
within the Commission’s forbearance
authority).53 Section 224 of the Act governs the Commission’s
regulation of pole attachments. In
particular, section 224(f)(1) requires utilities to provide cable
system operators and telecommunications
carriers the right of “nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct,
conduit, or right-of-way owned or
controlled” by a utility.54 Access to poles and other
infrastructure is crucial to the efficient deployment of
communications networks including, and perhaps especially, new
entrants.
!DSPAM:2,5501ecfa184921480014006!
Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading
I was saying that previously if I wanted all that crap (including pole attachment), I could file to be a CLEC to get that. I didn't want all that crap, so I didn't file. I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Is buried ROW access included or just pole attachments? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 5:08:24 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Nope. No CLEC required. You are already a telecommunications provider by virtue of the new net neutrality regulations. All the benefit, none of the calories. From: Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:07 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading but I get all of the crap of being a CLEC... and more. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bruce Robertson br...@pooh.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:06:10 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading The point is, now you don't have to go through that hassle. On 03/12/2015 12:45 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Not that exciting as if I wanted those, I'd just file to be a CLEC. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:37:47 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Light Reading Y’all now have the rights to pole contacts and rights of way. Even though it says ROWs controlled by a utility, I am pretty sure that public entities cannot discriminate against all you telecommunications providers and have to treat you equal to the others. Just cite “network neutrality” rules if they balk. 56. Section 224: Ensuring Infrastructure Access. For broadband Internet access service, we do not forbear from section 224 and the Commission’s associated procedural rules (to the extent they apply to telecommunications carriers and services and are, thus, within the Commission’s forbearance authority).53 Section 224 of the Act governs the Commission’s regulation of pole attachments. In particular, section 224(f)(1) requires utilities to provide cable system operators and telecommunications carriers the right of “nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled” by a utility.54 Access to poles and other infrastructure is crucial to the efficient deployment of communications networks including, and perhaps especially, new entrants. !DSPAM:2,5501ecfa184921480014006!
