Re: [WISPA] Politics as Usual
2-3 services providers sounds like a choice to me, I guess I'm not sure what the number would be. I guess if you just have 2-3 DSL resellers in an area that you would not have much choice but if between a DSL, cable and WISP you can't find what you are looking for, you are probably being unrealistic in your expectations. Add in other alternatives, Verizon, Clear Wire and Hughes and there really is comnpetition. Not sure about others, But I've met quite a few who use the Verizon card as their only internet connection, and I'm pretty certain we'll see a lot morte. ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Politics as Usual
Inline. Clint Ricker wrote: To be honest, I don't agree with providers restricting traffic on a per-protocol basis, with, perhaps, the exception of SMB ports (137-139 & 445) simply because there very few people legitimately uses SMB over WAN outside of a VPN. The problem with allowing any blocking, even with full disclosure, is that there is very little choice in the market (2-3 service provider options is typical for most people, and a lot don't even have that). Likewise, the major service providers tend to mirror each other heavily enough that they are more or less interchangeable. In other words, it's not a matter of "well, if comcast doesn't allow bit torrent, I'll just go to a provider that does". If they are allowed to block, they will...the negative repurcussions of blocking are quite small compared to the benefit of forcing customers to their own services. 2-3 services providers sounds like a choice to me, I guess I'm not sure what the number would be. I guess if you just have 2-3 DSL resellers in an area that you would not have much choice but if between a DSL, cable and WISP you can't find what you are looking for, you are probably being unrealistic in your expectations. The only way that you could make actual net neutrality (the banning of any traffic shaping beyond a bit cap) work would be to move to Marlon's method of billing where you charge on a byte transferred basis. I don't know too many people that can survive in the residential model without heavy oversubscription and net neutrality will kill that model because if you oversubscribe 10 to 1 and you get more than 10% P2P traffic you are on the losing end of it. By and large, I don't agree with the approach that some of the list members have espoused that would seem to suggest that such actions are ok for the small mom & pop providers but not for the major service providers. If you are going to provide Internet access, do your part to further the culture of a content-neutral policy. If nothing else, you'll at least be the provider that gives the alternative for customers want a more net netrality-minded service provider. I agree with you here. To ask for a different set of rules makes us no different than the worst of the monopolies. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless On 10/26/07, Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My take is that this is the that fateful "first step on a very slippery slope". Today they rate shape the traffic, next week they out right block it. I agree that any provider needs to use what ever tools they have to keep users "in line". The problem that Forbes is pointing out (I think) is that they are not telling customers they are doing this [rate shaping]. It also stems from the bad use of the word "unlimited" who's root is the heyday of dial-up [in terms of hours, not bandwidth or quantity of data). Regardless of weather I see it correctly or not, Very Good Work and we all should get writing. www.house.gov/writerep On 10/26/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'll crack open the can of worms What are you suggesting here Forbes? If it's just truth in advertising then I'm behind you 100%. If however you are suggesting that an ISP should not be able to block traffic of a particular type I will have to disagree. Currently I do not shape traffic beyond bandwidth limits on my customers and blocking netbios traffic at each AP. I would hate to lose the ability to block ports 137-139 though from a security standpoint. I know there are many other ISPs that aggressively shape their bandwidth just to stay in business. Forcing them to open up the pipes will most likely end up with poorer service for more customers. If I were an uninvolved 3rd party it would be interesting to see the market react to legislation that forced no traffic shaping beyond bandwidth caps, but as an independent ISP I don't think I want to try to live through it. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Forbes Mercy wrote: After reading a story this morning on a industry related blog I wrote a letter to my Republican Congressman. I sent the same to my two Democrat Senators but just took out the reference to being a Republican. :) Anyway I'm putting it here just so you can remember that only we can keep the pressure up on our representatives on issues that affect us and this is as good of a subject as any to keep beating the drum: "A year ago I wrote you when the AT&T purchase was being approved stating we had to stay vigilant against the carriers blocking each other in what we refer to as Net Neutrality. You wrote back, and I thank you for that, stating there is no real proof of providers blocking any traffic. This despite my proof at the time that Clearwire was already blocking any Voice over IP service (Internet Phone) other then theirs. I felt your stand was naïve because trusting the Telephone companies is like trusting the prisoners to watch the
RE: [WISPA] Alternative to Meraki mesh??
Whose system does this, Tim? I have worked with several of the "biggies" and the idea of multiple SSIDs is usually to provide different services, not co-mingle them. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Kerns Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alternative to Meraki mesh?? OLSR allows you to have multiple paths (tcp/IP) to your Internet gateway, a true mesh system not only allows multiple paths, but will also seek out different wireless connections to different SSID's to find the shortest path to the Internet gateway. In the case of OLSR (of the systems I've seen) it does not seek a list of SSID wireless connection. Tim Kerns CV-Access, Inc. ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Fw: [TowerTalk] Tower accident - link
http://www.arrl.org/?artid=7795 -Original Message- > --- David Fuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Greg Molyneaux, N5CLM, died last Saturday after >> falling 90 feet from >> a ham radio tower. >> >> Anyone have details on this accident? >> >> -Dave NN5K ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Politics as Usual
To be honest, I don't agree with providers restricting traffic on a per-protocol basis, with, perhaps, the exception of SMB ports (137-139 & 445) simply because there very few people legitimately uses SMB over WAN outside of a VPN. The problem with allowing any blocking, even with full disclosure, is that there is very little choice in the market (2-3 service provider options is typical for most people, and a lot don't even have that). Likewise, the major service providers tend to mirror each other heavily enough that they are more or less interchangeable. In other words, it's not a matter of "well, if comcast doesn't allow bit torrent, I'll just go to a provider that does". If they are allowed to block, they will...the negative repurcussions of blocking are quite small compared to the benefit of forcing customers to their own services. By and large, I don't agree with the approach that some of the list members have espoused that would seem to suggest that such actions are ok for the small mom & pop providers but not for the major service providers. If you are going to provide Internet access, do your part to further the culture of a content-neutral policy. If nothing else, you'll at least be the provider that gives the alternative for customers want a more net netrality-minded service provider. On 10/26/07, Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My take is that this is the that fateful "first step on a very > slippery slope". Today they rate shape the traffic, next week they out > right block it. I agree that any provider needs to use what ever tools > they have to keep users "in line". The problem that Forbes is pointing > out (I think) is that they are not telling customers they are doing > this [rate shaping]. It also stems from the bad use of the word > "unlimited" who's root is the heyday of dial-up [in terms of hours, > not bandwidth or quantity of data). Regardless of weather I see it > correctly or not, Very Good Work and we all should get writing. > www.house.gov/writerep > > > On 10/26/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll crack open the can of worms > > > > What are you suggesting here Forbes? If it's just truth in advertising > > then I'm behind you 100%. > > > > If however you are suggesting that an ISP should not be able to block > > traffic of a particular type I will have to disagree. Currently I do > > not shape traffic beyond bandwidth limits on my customers and blocking > > netbios traffic at each AP. I would hate to lose the ability to block > > ports 137-139 though from a security standpoint. > > > > I know there are many other ISPs that aggressively shape their bandwidth > > just to stay in business. Forcing them to open up the pipes will most > > likely end up with poorer service for more customers. > > > > If I were an uninvolved 3rd party it would be interesting to see the > > market react to legislation that forced no traffic shaping beyond > > bandwidth caps, but as an independent ISP I don't think I want to try to > > live through it. > > > > Sam Tetherow > > Sandhills Wireless > > > > Forbes Mercy wrote: > > > After reading a story this morning on a industry related blog I wrote a > > > letter to my Republican Congressman. I sent the same to my two Democrat > > > Senators but just took out the reference to being a Republican. :) > > > Anyway I'm putting it here just so you can remember that only we can keep > > > the pressure up on our representatives on issues that affect us and this > > > is as good of a subject as any to keep beating the drum: > > > > > > "A year ago I wrote you when the AT&T purchase was being approved stating > > > we had to stay vigilant against the carriers blocking each other in what > > > we refer to as Net Neutrality. You wrote back, and I thank you for that, > > > stating there is no real proof of providers blocking any traffic. This > > > despite my proof at the time that Clearwire was already blocking any > > > Voice over IP service (Internet Phone) other then theirs. > > > > > > I felt your stand was naïve because trusting the Telephone companies is > > > like trusting the prisoners to watch the prison. We're both good > > > Republicans who want to let companies grow as they may to achieve > > > profitability but the exclusionary tactics encouraging monopolistic > > > behavior is alive as always in this industry. Here is a link showing how > > > the wholly unregulated cable industry continues to set the standard of > > > censorship and gradual demise of a free and open Internet: > > > > > > http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/comcast_is_bloc.html?cid=nl_IWK_daily > > > > > > It is my hope you will pay heed to my warning that open enterprise does > > > not include making Internet access different by companies who make no > > > public claims in their terms and conditions to their customers. This > > > constitutes fraud as people buy Internet based on
