Re: Geyserville fire

[William Kenny]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/Fire-breaks-out-in-northern-Sonoma-County-near-14558358.php

Sonoma county California for everyone like me who was wondering.

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 1:17 AM Ben Cannon  wrote:

> Geyser Peak is on fire and will likely soon lose all mobile
> telecommunications.
>
> -Ben
>
> > On Oct 24, 2019, at 12:13 AM, Ben Cannon  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> >
> >
> > -Ben
>

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[William Kenny]

In related news, Verizon and ATT WILL be charging their data partners:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/verizon-to-test-sponsored-data-let-companies-pay-to-bypass-data-caps/

"Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that
would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up
customers' data plans. The news comes from aRe/code interview

with
Verizon Executive VP Marni Walden. “The capabilities we’ve built allow us
to break down any byte that is carried across our network and have all or a
portion of that sponsored,” Walden told Re/code."

is that still net neutrality?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Collin Anderson 
wrote:

> This thread seems to have run its course, but it was an interesting
> conversation, so I wanted to flag that the Open Technology Institute is
> running what seems to be a fairly balanced panel on the issue in D.C. next
> week. Might be worth asking if there's remote participation.
>
>
> https://newamerica.cvent.com/events/zero-rating-and-net-neutrality-is-free-content-naughty-or-nice-/registration-8e22b15178dc4fa88c2ebe19525262eb.aspx?i=d0db0beb-7340-47c8-8bcc-86d9d6cc85b8
>
> New America
> Please note our new address!
> 740 15th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005
> Wednesday, December 16, 2015 | 12:00 pm - 1:45 pm
>
>
> Even if the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the FCC’s Open Internet
> Order, the ability of mobile carriers to exclude certain content from the
> data caps or buckets that determine what a user pays each month remains
> undecided and controversial. Although mobile carriers maintain that
> zero-rating selected content is pro-consumer, some consumer advocates argue
> the FCC should find it violates network neutrality rules against favoring
> some Internet content or applications over others.
>
> In the U.S., T-Mobile recently launched Binge On, which allows consumers to
> opt out of the delivery of 'free' (zero-rated) streaming video content at
> lower resolution (CD quality), and instead receive content at
> high-definition that counts against their data limit. T-Mobile also hosts
> Music Freedom, which zero-rates participating streaming music services.
>
> In the developing world, Facebook’s Free Basics initiative partners with
> mobile carriers to provide cell phone customers with low-bandwidth versions
> of participating information and social media apps (e.g., Wikipedia and
> Facebook itself) at no cost in the hope this exposure will encourage them
> to upgrade to full Internet access.
>
> Join us for an explanation and debate about zero-rating on mobile networks,
> featuring the two companies most visibly marketing the practice, as well as
> a range of perspectives from consumer and public interest advocates.
>
> Lunch will be served.
>
> Follow the discussion online using #ZeroRating
> and by following us @OTI.
>
> Participants:
> Kevin Martin
> Vice President for Mobile & Global Access, Facebook
> Former Chairman, FCC
> @facebook
>
> Mark Cooper
> Research Director, Consumer Federation of America
> @ConsumerFed
>
> Steve Sharkey
> Chief, Engineering and Technology Policy, T-Mobile
> @TMobile
>
> Matt Wood
> Policy Director, Free Press
> @MattFWood
>
> Sarah Morris
> Senior Policy Counsel, Open Technology Institute at New America
> @sarmorris
>
> Moderator:
> Michael Calabrese
> Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute at New America
> @MCalabreseNAF
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Tony Hain  wrote:
>
> > Keenan Tims wrote:
> > > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > > Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> > >
> > > I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
> > > clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
> > > That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no
> basis
> > in
> > > the cost of operating the network.
> >
> > I have no visibility into what the line
> > "T‐Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks
> > work together to properly"
> > actually means, but they could/should be using this as a tool to drive
> > content sources to IPv6.
> >
> > Trying to explain to consumers why an unlimited data plan only works for
> a
> > tiny subset of content is a waste of energy. Picking a category and
> > "encouraging" that content to move, then after the time limit, pick the
> > next category, rinse/repeat, is a way to move traffic away from the 6/4
> nat
> > infrastructure without having to make a big deal about the IP version to
> > the consumer, and at the same time remove "it costs too much" complaints
> > from the sources. If I were implementing such a plan, I would walk the
> list
> > of traffic sources based on volume to move traffic as quickly as
> possible,
> > so it makes perfect sense to me that they would start with video.
> >
> > 

Re: FCC releases Open Internet document

[William Kenny]

Page 7 -14 looks to be pretty important. Specifcially:

NO BLOCKING:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service,
insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content,
applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable
network management.

NO THROTTLING:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service,
insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful
Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service,
or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

NO PAID PRIORITIZATION:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service,
insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid
prioritization.

There is also an interesting bit on gatekeeping:
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service,
insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with
or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and
use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content,
applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’
ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices
available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be
considered a violation of this rule.

I think there are going to be a lot of complex implications of this
announcement (canidate for most obvious statement aware winner!).

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:32 AM, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mar 12, 2015 11:01 AM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  For the first time to the public
 

 http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
 
  Enjoy.

 Uh yeah, I'll wait for the reviews when y'all get done trudging through
 that...