Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
- Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband providers network. If there is any application that I can think of that changes the rules of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say you sold a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no ISP has sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a small percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or had in mind that this type of usage would be common place when he first sold his services and set pricing. Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if we all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows movies-television shows at the same time across our network. That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video have a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to both our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee? It's not Hollywood Video, it's YOUR CUSTOMER using your network. Only your customer owes you, nobody else. Are you prepared to tell your customer... We provide internet connections, but block the sites we don't want you to access..? North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - Anyone else want to argue this? It's a good subject that we should be discussing. George Jack Unger wrote: Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I urge each one of you to: 1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/ 2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the American Constitution - Freedom of Speech. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html 3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality 4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save the Internet. 5. If you disagree, take action to support your position. 6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your position. So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone. Thank you for listening, jack -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
It is? IIRC, the tariff price of 1.5 meg DSL from BellSouth is $23.95. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: But what about oversubscription? Transit costs aside, the cost of last-mile transport of even 1 Mbps of data pipe is still far more than $20-30 / month What happens when users actually start *using* the bandwidth they are *promised*... -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you don't have to pay for it. -Matt George Rogato wrote: It is a stretch peter. But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the provider will have increased costs. Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops lower theirs? Not likely. The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content can't get a free ride. So what should we do? George Peter R. wrote: That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money? If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 days notice to affect a price change? - Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. George Rogato wrote: I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem. But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get ALL their tv that way. Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your customers. Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got there be enough to handle that type of traffic? Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this? What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build local infrastructure? I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be saying then? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
But that's just the last mile local loop -- what about the ATM DS-3 circuit coming back (and so forth) Then there's servicing costs / etc Keep in mind -- Bell copper has been amortized for quite a long time now -- and has been installed at almost a 100% penetration rate -- if you're building your own infrastructure (wireless per say) -- do you realistically believe that you're monthly costs for transport (inclusive from your NOC to the customer's house) is less? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 12:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) It is? IIRC, the tariff price of 1.5 meg DSL from BellSouth is $23.95. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: But what about oversubscription? Transit costs aside, the cost of last-mile transport of even 1 Mbps of data pipe is still far more than $20-30 / month What happens when users actually start *using* the bandwidth they are *promised*... -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you don't have to pay for it. -Matt George Rogato wrote: It is a stretch peter. But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the provider will have increased costs. Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops lower theirs? Not likely. The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content can't get a free ride. So what should we do? George Peter R. wrote: That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money? If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 days notice to affect a price change? - Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. George Rogato wrote: I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem. But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get ALL their tv that way. Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your customers. Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got there be enough to handle that type of traffic? Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this? What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build local infrastructure? I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be saying then? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Matt, Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts. What makes you come to that conclusion? Well... you can't make Net Neutrality Laws without considering how ISPs would be capable of technically delivering on those laws, without self harm. I have not read anything from legislators that includes data on technical aspects of delivery. The problems is that Fiber has different capabilties than Wireless, and I jsut don;t see how someone can make a law that deal with delviery of data, when technologies used for delivery are so widely different in capacity. Ex. One fiber loop, can deliver 80GB. Jsut needs a hardware change, which price may drop in cost with market forces and legislation encouraging higher speeds and volume of deployment. Wireless on the other hand has a fixed capacity, in practicality today. In many cases peaked at 30mbps, and often peaked at as low a 4 mbps. How can legislation address both technologies with out special provisions injected to cater to each? The absense of adresssing dissimilar technology in Legislation infers that those writing legislation do not undrstand the issues at hand jsutifying it to be addressed. In truth, I have no prove that draws me to my conclusion. It just sounds likely to me. This industry takes a lot of predicting and forecasting, its not all black and white for us to know the truth. So, where is your argument against my earlier email? Actualy my response really isn't a targeted arguement to your original post. Reading your post, however did spark thought from me on Net Neutrality, that I find a interesting complex issue. Consider my response, my daily rambling. :-) I disagree it is a flawed model. We have customers that buy VoIP from us and others that buy VoIP from companies like Vonage. Our VoIP is much higher quality, but for customers that buy Vonage they accept the service for what it is. We don't lower the priority of Vonage traffic; we don't have to. Our VoIP service will always better if for no other reason than it doesn't rely on internet transit. Core internet routers are designed to move as much traffic as fast as possible. Sometimes this means queing of traffic to obtain maximum throughput, while at the same time raising latency. That is a good thing for core routers, but a bad thing for real-time traffic like VoIP. The difference here is that you currently appear to offer adequate QOS on your network design to offer a better Quality service. Many WISPs do NOT. Because they went after a different market that did not require it. And many of them will likely not beable to upgrade their networks adequately to cater to requirements to deliver Net Neutrality as some legislation suggests the problem get solved. Which could result in large loss of clients and failure of businesses. I'm not necessarilly against Net Neutrality. I just need to know that certain special interests such as Wireless and small providers are looked out for and not just bundled in with the profiles of the large carriers, Ilecs, cable co, and National CLECS. The other thing is that I believe it is foolish to think that you will always deliver better QOS. Maybe you do today, I don;t challenge that. But the jsut because the Vonages of the world are cheap, does not necessarilly make them a less reliable provider. The Vonages of the world are the largest threats to third party VOIP providers, jsut lije giant Cable companies are threats to Independant ISPs, and Microsoft is to Operating system developers. Vonage has scaled huge, and that gives them an economy of scale to be capable of delivering better value. They also have more money to hire better people to design better systems, etc. It doesn't mean they have done it today, but the possibilty is there. But I agree with your point, in most cases, there should be no reason to specifically lower the priority of Vonages traffic, ethically. But a network very well might need to limit all VOIP in general to maintain QOS for data. The difference is cherry picking out specific businesses to block or harm. That is what Net Neutrality must protect from. But a Network Provider must be able to deterine what type of traffic can travel accross its network, and at what speed and priority, its required for network management. So let me go as far as saying, maybe it is wrong for a provider to prioritize delivery of its product over another providers, after further thought. An ISP can jsutify the higher QOS of its self provided VOIP services, based on number of hops to VOIP gateway. If my VOIP gateway rtesides on my network, with a engineered path, I know its likely going to perform better than someone using a VOIP service that travels the INternet to the VOIP gateway without the abilty to deliver QOS. MAybe this will turn into a situation like Google cache appliances, or
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Charles Wu wrote: But that's just the last mile local loop -- what about the ATM DS-3 circuit coming back (and so forth) Then there's servicing costs / etc I was simply responding to your statement regarding just the last mile transport. If you want to include other considerations in the discussion then I don't understand your earlier email. Keep in mind -- Bell copper has been amortized for quite a long time now -- and has been installed at almost a 100% penetration rate -- if you're building your own infrastructure (wireless per say) -- do you realistically believe that you're monthly costs for transport (inclusive from your NOC to the customer's house) is less? I never stated that my transport costs are less. Then again, I don't provide transport to single family homes anyway, so it is kind of irrelevant. Do I sell non-oversubscribed bandwidth to our commercial customers today? Yes, so I really don't care how much bandwidth they use. Can I sell a similar service to dense residential developments? Sure, but we haven't figured out how to do more than 2 installs per day, so I would rather focus on high ARPU customers. BTW, our 1.5Mbps last mile transport costs are lower than what Bell offers CLECs. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Tom DeReggi wrote: The difference here is that you currently appear to offer adequate QOS on your network design to offer a better Quality service. Many WISPs do NOT. Because they went after a different market that did not require it. And many of them will likely not beable to upgrade their networks adequately to cater to requirements to deliver Net Neutrality as some legislation suggests the problem get solved. Which could result in large loss of clients and failure of businesses. I'm not necessarilly against Net Neutrality. I just need to know that certain special interests such as Wireless and small providers are looked out for and not just bundled in with the profiles of the large carriers, Ilecs, cable co, and National CLECS. Markets change and business that won't or can't adapt deserve to lose. We should not have regulation designed to protect business models that no longer make sense. For example, I don't think we should help the airlines out when they run out of money. If some airlines can operate profitably then there is no reason to help out ones that can't. The other thing is that I believe it is foolish to think that you will always deliver better QOS. Maybe you do today, I don;t challenge that. But the jsut because the Vonages of the world are cheap, does not necessarilly make them a less reliable provider. The Vonages of the world are the largest threats to third party VOIP providers, jsut lije giant Cable companies are threats to Independant ISPs, and Microsoft is to Operating system developers. Vonage has scaled huge, and that gives them an economy of scale to be capable of delivering better value. They also have more money to hire better people to design better systems, etc. It doesn't mean they have done it today, but the possibilty is there. Vonage might be bigger, have better people, and more cash, but their service will never be higher quality that ours because we own the network. Vonage's service might be good enough (I don't think it is), but it will never be better until they have end-to-end control. So let me go as far as saying, maybe it is wrong for a provider to prioritize delivery of its product over another providers, after further thought. An ISP can jsutify the higher QOS of its self provided VOIP services, based on number of hops to VOIP gateway. If my VOIP gateway rtesides on my network, with a engineered path, I know its likely going to perform better than someone using a VOIP service that travels the INternet to the VOIP gateway without the abilty to deliver QOS. MAybe this will turn into a situation like Google cache appliances, or edge Web caching appliances, where the VOIP providers pay you to host their VOIP gateways to get shortest path the Subscriber/VOIP Phone user? VoIP gateways closer to the customer is certainly one way to address the problem. I would expect the Akamais of the world to be looking into this. But what needs to be made inevidably clear in any Net Neutrality legislation, is that a Network Provider must never be prevented from taking actions that will allow them to fix or deliver the QOS or EXPERIENCE to its customers, that they are contractually obligated to deliver to its subscribers, not necessarilly speed, capacity or commited rates. Network providers can not fear LEGAL RECOURCE every time they go to manage their network. Certainly the government can force you to modify the contracts you have with your customers. See the 911 problems all the VoIP providers are having. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Charles, Many do indeed :) - Peter Charles Wu wrote: But that's just the last mile local loop -- what about the ATM DS-3 circuit coming back (and so forth) Then there's servicing costs / etc Keep in mind -- Bell copper has been amortized for quite a long time now -- and has been installed at almost a 100% penetration rate -- if you're building your own infrastructure (wireless per say) -- do you realistically believe that you're monthly costs for transport (inclusive from your NOC to the customer's house) is less? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
What tariff rate? DSL is unregulated and de-tariffed. It is also subsidized by voice services, since it uses the same copper pair. Billing is miniscule (less than $1) because you already get a bill. Their IP and ATM combined cost is less than $2 per subscriber. The real overhead is tech support and the DSG (DSL Support Group). - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: It is? IIRC, the tariff price of 1.5 meg DSL from BellSouth is $23.95. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: But what about oversubscription? Transit costs aside, the cost of last-mile transport of even 1 Mbps of data pipe is still far more than $20-30 / month What happens when users actually start *using* the bandwidth they are *promised*... -Charles -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
I was simply responding to your statement regarding just the last mile transport. If you want to include other considerations in the discussion then I don't understand your earlier email. When considering net neutrality and its implications (e.g., allowing the TV company to stream video over your network) -- I'm am trying to point out that it's not simply a matter of bandwidth from the tower to the customer, but also the tower backbone all the way to your NOC Now -- if you're selling dedicated commercial bandwidth, this isn't an issue, but if you're following standard residential oversubscription rules / ratio (e.g., 1000 acounts equates to about 10 Mb @ 95%) -- it's going to get EXTREMELY PAINFUL if those customers actually try to use all the bandwidth that's been marketed to them Then there's the issue of all those nasty/filtered services and net neutrality -- will filtering bittorrent (or whatever nasty new bandwidth hogging file sharing or whatever new program out there) violate the terms of network neutrality? -Charles -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
According to Eric Lee, most of the 500+ members of Congress don't understand any of this stuff, but have to write a bill that does. Hence, do you really think that Congress or the FCC takes in to account the difference between fiber and wireless? How about the cable system and the PSTN? How about wireless and cellular? Nope. All lumped under one big pile that is misunderstood, but is churning the American economic engine and keeping many lobbyists and Congressmen rich. Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: Well... you can't make Net Neutrality Laws without considering how ISPs would be capable of technically delivering on those laws, without self harm. I have not read anything from legislators that includes data on technical aspects of delivery. The problems is that Fiber has different capabilties than Wireless, and I jsut don;t see how someone can make a law that deal with delviery of data, when technologies used for delivery are so widely different in capacity. Ex. One fiber loop, can deliver 80GB. Jsut needs a hardware change, which price may drop in cost with market forces and legislation encouraging higher speeds and volume of deployment. Wireless on the other hand has a fixed capacity, in practicality today. In many cases peaked at 30mbps, and often peaked at as low a 4 mbps. How can legislation address both technologies with out special provisions injected to cater to each? The absense of adresssing dissimilar technology in Legislation infers that those writing legislation do not undrstand the issues at hand jsutifying it to be addressed. In truth, I have no prove that draws me to my conclusion. It just sounds likely to me. This industry takes a lot of predicting and forecasting, its not all black and white for us to know the truth. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Charles Wu wrote: When considering net neutrality and its implications (e.g., allowing the TV company to stream video over your network) -- I'm am trying to point out that it's not simply a matter of bandwidth from the tower to the customer, but also the tower backbone all the way to your NOC Fair enough, but your earlier email asked on about a single issue, last mile transport. Now -- if you're selling dedicated commercial bandwidth, this isn't an issue, but if you're following standard residential oversubscription rules / ratio (e.g., 1000 acounts equates to about 10 Mb @ 95%) -- it's going to get EXTREMELY PAINFUL if those customers actually try to use all the bandwidth that's been marketed to them Then maybe standard residential over subscription isn't going to work much longer. I don't see that as an issue worthy of government time though. If the market demands more bandwidth and your business can't deliver then I agree your business is going to be painful. On the other hand, if you can deliver exciting times are coming. Then there's the issue of all those nasty/filtered services and net neutrality -- will filtering bittorrent (or whatever nasty new bandwidth hogging file sharing or whatever new program out there) violate the terms of network neutrality? Filtering services is the wrong way to go. Bandwidth management that encourages the right sort of subscriber behavior is a better way to go. Don't like people downloading DVDs over your network? Slow down downloads that are active for longer than a specified period of time. This enables the user to do what they want, but at the same time encourages the user to do what you want. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
WE aren't going to be able to do anything. Do you have millions to lobby this (one way or the other)? We will sit back and watch what happens, just like we ALWAYS have to do. The smaller WISPs have never influenced anything political. It's the big players that make the changes. Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: It is a stretch peter. But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the provider will have increased costs. Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops lower theirs? Not likely. The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content can't get a free ride. So what should we do? George Peter R. wrote: That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money? If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 days notice to affect a price change? - Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. George Rogato wrote: I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem. But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get ALL their tv that way. Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your customers. Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got there be enough to handle that type of traffic? Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this? What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build local infrastructure? I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be saying then? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you don't have to pay for it. -Matt George Rogato wrote: It is a stretch peter. But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the provider will have increased costs. Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops lower theirs? Not likely. The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content can't get a free ride. So what should we do? George Peter R. wrote: That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money? If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 days notice to affect a price change? - Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. George Rogato wrote: I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem. But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get ALL their tv that way. Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your customers. Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got there be enough to handle that type of traffic? Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this? What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build local infrastructure? I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be saying then? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
? The problem with that plan is with the exception of the Cashmere companies who would get filthy rich over night, most Retail stores would soon go out of business. And consumers would get cheated in the long run, because there would no longer be any where to buy Cashmere either. How is Cashmere and Cotton any different than the flavors of Broadband than many provider offer? An ISP has the right to carry inventory just like any other industry. In the above example, I am defining the product that consumers are buying as flavors of broadband connectivity, (burst, MIR, CIR, Best effort, oversubscriber 1000 to 1, over subscribed 1 to 2, etc.), and in no way does the INternet content ever come into play in the arguement, nor should it. The reason is that Broadband providers don't necessaarilly sell content, they sell broadband products. Content is not their business, and really are irrelevant arguements. But if they want to sell content as well, so what? Shouldn't they have the right, to add that product to their port folio. When I have an agreement between me the provider and the consumer, it is an agreement between us two parties, and NOWHERE does it include an understanding with any third party content provider. I don't see their signature. They are not part of the contract and ahve no right regarding it, and the consumer has no rights under the contract greater than the rights given within that contract. Who say Internet Access is defined as Content? The Internet is a physical Network. And to guarantee the original intent of the Internet, the only thing we must guarantee is the Internetworking between members of the Internet. Therefore giving those that want to share content and receive content a mechanism to do so. NOT A GUARANTEE TO DO SO! The INternet is a machanism for Interconnections, not an intity to take over other's networks. Should a University no longer beable to manage their own network, because it gets connected to the Internet? How is that any different than a Local ISP managing the subscribers on its network? Some Universities are larger than soem small ISPs. This is where the difference is... Should Safeway be allowed to choose which products Giant is allowed to sell to its consumers? This now being not only an analogy for content, but also for speed limiting. If I want to sell my clients the 1 mbps CIR product, I don't have the abilty if the ILEC blocks and slows down my traffic to them, based on it comming from me the Provider, thus preventing fair competition. Whats important to understand here above all is... As long as consumers have choice of providers, there is an effect market pressure to make sure Consumers are not cheated and can continue to access content. Content providers are not at risk currently. Anyone can setup Content providing anywhere, anytime, easilly. Broadband Connectivity providers on the other hand do not have that same luxury. Competitive Broadband providers MUST be protected at all costs. By protecting the Third Party Broadband providers, maintaining competition within connectivity, by default indirectly, consumers are protected, and ultimately Content providers will have many option for servcie delivery. The second third party connectivity providers are extinct, the Content provider will not be far from it. The reason is a Monopoly is often above the law. You can't hold monoply responsible when doing so will result in the destruvtion of service for many consumers, it will kill industry and the economy. Both ILECS and Microsoft have proven this over and over again. Once they got control, there is no tiurning back, and they will make the rules that they see fit. What do you do when the ILECs desides they are going to partner with just one content provider? Do you think teh Governemnt will be able to stop them once they own the market? When there can only be one, whats the chance that you will be it? If you want to save the content provider, the best way to do it is make legislation that protects the third party connectivity proivider, NOT the content provider. There is no free lunch for the Content provider anymore than for anyone else. Net Neutrality is about connectivity provider rights, not consumer rights or content provider rights. My take on Net Neutrality. No NOT save the Internet, Save the Third Party Connectivity Providers that allow it to be an Internet. My fear is that one day the Internet will go away, but because it will become the Verizon or SBC Network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 9:45 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Very powerful statement!!! Jory Privett WCCS - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) Well, that the big misunderstanding right there. When someone sells 1 mbps of speed, who said that meant they are selling the customer continuous 1 mbps for what ever use they want? And just because we sell them a 1 mbps last mile, who says that we are selling them that capacity accross our backbone network? Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts. When I sell 1 mbps to a resident, I in no way represent I am selling the subscriber 1 mbps of capacity. I'm selling him that speed. There is a nig difference. If they want that guaranteed capacity, they can buy it from me per bit, or pay for a CIR plan that guarantees that capacity. Also, content providers practice limiting individual connections' (end user's) speed to their content servers. Why should they have the right to limit our consumer's speed? They argue to protect their servers and Internet connections. How is that any different for an ISP to limit connections to their end users, to protect their Internet connections. Who really owns the Internet connections to consumers? Is it the consumer or the ISP? Last time I checked its the ISP that holds the long term loan covering the cost of that infrastructure, not the subscriber. If the end user cancels, its the ISP that is left covering the bill. I argue it is the ISP that owns that connection, and should be able to do what ever they want with their connection. There is a big difference controling traffic of your users, versus blocking traffic from other Broadband providers. Net Neutrality should address one topic and one topic only, prevent one Broadband provider from blocking traffic from another broadband provider in an attempt to harm the other Broadband provider or have a competitive advantage over that other Broadband provider, by leveraging its size and share of the market. There needs to be free non-discriminary exchange of data between Broadband providers, so that competitions can be abundant and consumers have choice, and can select based on the accomplishments and merit added by those providers. Content Providers nor Consumers have the right to control where and who they send data to, in my opinion. Its no different than a property owner determining who their tenants can and can not have access to, and who can and can not bring cable on to their property. VOIP providers most likely won't share my view, as they want a free ride. However, I beleive VOIP providers would not be harmfully effected by this, as all it would mean is that they must make partnerships with ISPs. There are 7000 ISPs out there ready to accept partnerships. Whats wrong with that. UNfortuneately, the idea that a VOIP content provider should ahve free reign to sell to anyone, such as through best Buy and Circuit cities, regardless of which ISP used, is a flawed model for competition. The reason is that the most popular and largest VOIP providers will be the one that gets the deal with Circuit Cities and Best Buys, and the industry will get lopsided, almost like a market driven self created monopoly. Forcing VOIP providers to make deals with ISPs, will create the opportunity for more different VOIP providers to be successfull and have a peice of the pie. It will also guaranteee that consumers can't as easilly be blindsided by misrepresenting marketing material. It will guarantee that VOIP has a better chance to survuve will good QOS because attention will be given by the broadband provider to make sure it is there. in another view, maybe ethically, its the content providers that should get a free ride. And its the subscribers that should be getting billed. But we all know, the uproar that will happen when we try and charge the consumer. The truth is the consumer has such a gross misunderstanding of how the industry works and what it is they have bought when subscribing to a broadband service, its almost impossible to change the perception at this point. We owe that to the huge marketing efforts of Cable and ILECs :-( So its not about ethics anymore. Its about survival, and how to make it work. And that most likely means charging content providers, whether its right or not. But one thing I can tell you for sure, is its not the Broadband provider taht should pay for it. Nobody should be able to force me to mold the product that I sell into something other than what I want to sell. Its like going to a retial store and the governemnt forcing the owner to only be allowed to sell cashmere instead of cotton, but requiring them to sell it at the same cost as the cotton, regardless of the fact that the cashmere has a higher cost than the cotton did. Think about it, it would
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Jack, I have not visited the site yet, and at your recommendation, I will explore their content, to see if it is something that I would support or not. However, if only 6 ISPs have signed, that could be a sign, that it may not support our needs. I believe in Freedom of Speech, but I also believe its the responsibilty of the speaker to bare the cost and responsibilty of their speech. Its not the ISPs responsibilty to buy the microphone. Net Neutrality, is a tough subject, to even fully understand what a group is supporting. Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet I agree, but... The problem is the interpretation of what the definition of the Internet is. I have no problem with the above comment, if meaning is conections between providers. The problem is that most people Interperate Internet being the connection all the way to the consumer. I feel that legislation may prevent ISPs from blocking access from their consumers. The only alternative is prioritizing or slowing down traffic accross the network between providers. Its hard to know if the second should not be supported, if we don;t know if we'll loose control of our last mile. If wireless Providers can't control the flow of data on their network to consumers, it will destroy their networks. And If WISPS are allowed to block and Large carriers are not, consumers are likely to pick big carriers over WISPs. Its a scary situation, when you know one TV broadcast can monopolize the throughput of a WISPs connection to its clients in many cases. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:09 PM Subject: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I urge each one of you to: 1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/ 2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the American Constitution - Freedom of Speech. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html 3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality 4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save the Internet. 5. If you disagree, take action to support your position. 6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your position. So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone. Thank you for listening, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next public WISP Workshop is June 21 and 22 in Atlanta, Georgia Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Tom DeReggi wrote: When someone sells 1 mbps of speed, who said that meant they are selling the customer continuous 1 mbps for what ever use they want? And just because we sell them a 1 mbps last mile, who says that we are selling them that capacity accross our backbone network? You may oversubscribe your customers; not every ISP does. However, that is irrelevant. If the customer is buying an oversubscribed link then the customer must accept that certain types of content may not work very well. That is the customer's choice. Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts. What makes you come to that conclusion? When I sell 1 mbps to a resident, I in no way represent I am selling the subscriber 1 mbps of capacity. I'm selling him that speed. There is a nig difference. If they want that guaranteed capacity, they can buy it from me per bit, or pay for a CIR plan that guarantees that capacity. And if the customer buys a CIR plan then they can use their connection for whatever content they want right? So, where is your argument against my earlier email? VOIP providers most likely won't share my view, as they want a free ride. However, I beleive VOIP providers would not be harmfully effected by this, as all it would mean is that they must make partnerships with ISPs. There are 7000 ISPs out there ready to accept partnerships. Whats wrong with that. UNfortuneately, the idea that a VOIP content provider should ahve free reign to sell to anyone, such as through best Buy and Circuit cities, regardless of which ISP used, is a flawed model for competition. The reason is that the most popular and largest VOIP providers will be the one that gets the deal with Circuit Cities and Best Buys, and the industry will get lopsided, almost like a market driven self created monopoly. Forcing VOIP providers to make deals with ISPs, will create the opportunity for more different VOIP providers to be successfull and have a peice of the pie. It will also guaranteee that consumers can't as easilly be blindsided by misrepresenting marketing material. It will guarantee that VOIP has a better chance to survuve will good QOS because attention will be given by the broadband provider to make sure it is there. I disagree it is a flawed model. We have customers that buy VoIP from us and others that buy VoIP from companies like Vonage. Our VoIP is much higher quality, but for customers that buy Vonage they accept the service for what it is. We don't lower the priority of Vonage traffic; we don't have to. Our VoIP service will always better if for no other reason than it doesn't rely on internet transit. Core internet routers are designed to move as much traffic as fast as possible. Sometimes this means queing of traffic to obtain maximum throughput, while at the same time raising latency. That is a good thing for core routers, but a bad thing for real-time traffic like VoIP. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Tom, Random mixed thoughts: When I buy a car or a sweater, I understand the tangible asset I have paid for. When I pay a toll on a highway, I understand that it is a tax for the thru-way upkeep. When I buy an internet pipe, I assume when they say 1.5M, I get 1.5M. Anything else better be explained or it is false advertising. And everyone has had the speed test junkies that scream about 1.3M. The Big Boys state that it is best effort. Do you? Do you advertise CIR or offer it? Do you have terms that explain it is not a dedicated connection? These are the CYA policies necessary. BellSouth has sued successfully ISPs for advertising they though was misleading, even as they themselves use misleading terms and phrases. But who has the bucks to sue the Tele-Baron??? I don't see any time soon when people are going to be downloading TV and movies. Some will, but a majority do not want to watch them from a PC. The Telcos are in for a rude awakening because the TV pie is static. As Isen explained this week, the price will have to go up for consumers, since neither cable nor telco can afford to pay off debt, maintain the pipes, and make their usual bloated profit off triple play. So it will be a price war in the short term, then price increases in the long term. Bloody for all, especially the consumer. On Net Neutrality - Personally, I think it should be hands off. Period. Anything less and the internet will become useless. And that Free Ride argument... who gets a free ride? Both sides all ready pay a provider for access. So where is the free? Plus, why do you think people want BB? If it was just to check email, they would stay on dial-up or buy a CrackBerry. They are buying an experience or a tool. If the tool doesn't work, they will buy another one. If the experience becomes painful, they will go elsewhere. This is the way of the market. Why do people flock to Starbucks, Lexus, BlackBerries? The experience, not the product. Sorry for rambling. One too many cups of cappucino today. Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
After attending the Freedom to Connect conference, I was able to get a very up close and personal look at the people who are strongly supporting the Net Neutrality concepts. I believe that the intention is to keep the status quo of the Internet, and make sure that we will all be able to get the content that we want with a minimum of control/blockage/prioritization, etc. However, there are a couple of distinctions that need to be made. #1) Last mile networks that are built with private, non-government money - should not be FORCED to follow common-carrier guidelines. I.E. - I build and paid for my own network, and if I want to block port 1 and break Vonage from working, I should be able to do that. Sucks for Vonage, but it would suck even more if the management of private networks was controlled by legislators. Any new network construction that gets any kind of economic development or government assistance in the form of tax credits or breaks should have network neutrality mandated into it - or they don't get the assistance. #2) There should be a set of services that do fall under the common carrier guidelines and do little more than provide the interconnect between networks. There should be strong Network Neutrality guidelines for interconnection at the backbone level. Otherwise, my backbone provider can decide to block traffic and then it is out of my control. Of course they can charge more, and for these kind of connections we are ALREADY paying a substantial premium, but unfettered common carrier connections need to be available. The one thing that could really make a big difference in this whole equation is the existence and growth of other players beyond the telephone companies and major backbone carriers. If the telcos and cablecos continue with their apparent plan to make their networks into giant walled silos of their own content - there will be a substantial demand for open networks. WISPS are in a good position to take advantage of their manipulations. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom DeReggi wrote: Jack, I have not visited the site yet, and at your recommendation, I will explore their content, to see if it is something that I would support or not. However, if only 6 ISPs have signed, that could be a sign, that it may not support our needs. I believe in Freedom of Speech, but I also believe its the responsibilty of the speaker to bare the cost and responsibilty of their speech. Its not the ISPs responsibilty to buy the microphone. Net Neutrality, is a tough subject, to even fully understand what a group is supporting. Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet I agree, but... The problem is the interpretation of what the definition of the Internet is. I have no problem with the above comment, if meaning is conections between providers. The problem is that most people Interperate Internet being the connection all the way to the consumer. I feel that legislation may prevent ISPs from blocking access from their consumers. The only alternative is prioritizing or slowing down traffic accross the network between providers. Its hard to know if the second should not be supported, if we don;t know if we'll loose control of our last mile. If wireless Providers can't control the flow of data on their network to consumers, it will destroy their networks. And If WISPS are allowed to block and Large carriers are not, consumers are likely to pick big carriers over WISPs. Its a scary situation, when you know one TV broadcast can monopolize the throughput of a WISPs connection to its clients in many cases. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:09 PM Subject: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I urge each one of you to: 1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/ 2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the American Constitution - Freedom of Speech. http
[WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I urge each one of you to: 1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/ 2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the American Constitution - Freedom of Speech. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html 3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality 4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save the Internet. 5. If you disagree, take action to support your position. 6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your position. So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone. Thank you for listening, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next public WISP Workshop is June 21 and 22 in Atlanta, Georgia Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband providers network. If there is any application that I can think of that changes the rules of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say you sold a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no ISP has sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a small percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or had in mind that this type of usage would be common place when he first sold his services and set pricing. Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if we all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows movies-television shows at the same time across our network. That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video have a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to both our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee? Anyone else want to argue this? It's a good subject that we should be discussing. George Jack Unger wrote: Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I urge each one of you to: 1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/ 2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the American Constitution - Freedom of Speech. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html 3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality 4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save the Internet. 5. If you disagree, take action to support your position. 6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your position. So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone. Thank you for listening, jack -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Hi, The flip side is that you are selling a customer a connection. That is how YOU are making your money... why do you care what they run over it? Does it matter if it's IPTV or doing an FTP file transfer? However, I really don't think this is going to affect the smaller operators. This bill was designed for people like UUnet, ATT, Sprint, etc. so they can start doing a tiered billing (in hopes of making more money for the same amount of bandwidth). I also heard that Google and some other players were possibly supporting this idea, in hopes that they would be able to pay for faster net speeds. (i.e. when someone does a Google search it would be faster because Google is paying ATT or whomever for faster access than say Yahoo or whoever). It is a bad idea all the way around. I can see no benefit to the average Internet user, and only more headaches for the ISP's. Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband providers network. If there is any application that I can think of that changes the rules of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say you sold a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no ISP has sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a small percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or had in mind that this type of usage would be common place when he first sold his services and set pricing. Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if we all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows movies-television shows at the same time across our network. That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video have a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to both our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee? Anyone else want to argue this? It's a good subject that we should be discussing. George Jack Unger wrote: Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I urge each one of you to: 1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/ 2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the American Constitution - Freedom of Speech. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html 3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality 4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save the Internet. 5. If you disagree, take action to support your position. 6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your position. So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone. Thank you for listening, jack -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
It seems like it is time to bill by the packet. Or at least by groups of packets as in 2 Gigs for $39. Many clients don;t like this kind of billing, but it is likely the only way you can do anything about IPTV. If you have sold someone a 384k unmetered connection, and they decide to actually use it, how can you justify changing the rules? John George Rogato wrote: While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband providers network. If there is any application that I can think of that changes the rules of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say you sold a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no ISP has sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a small percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or had in mind that this type of usage would be common place when he first sold his services and set pricing. Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if we all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows movies-television shows at the same time across our network. That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video have a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to both our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee? Anyone else want to argue this? It's a good subject that we should be discussing. George Jack Unger wrote: Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I urge each one of you to: 1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/ 2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the American Constitution - Freedom of Speech. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html 3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality 4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save the Internet. 5. If you disagree, take action to support your position. 6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your position. So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone. Thank you for listening, jack -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
If Google wants to be faster, let them buy more T-3s or more peering, or whatever-don't screw with packet priority... John Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, The flip side is that you are selling a customer a connection. That is how YOU are making your money... why do you care what they run over it? Does it matter if it's IPTV or doing an FTP file transfer? However, I really don't think this is going to affect the smaller operators. This bill was designed for people like UUnet, ATT, Sprint, etc. so they can start doing a tiered billing (in hopes of making more money for the same amount of bandwidth). I also heard that Google and some other players were possibly supporting this idea, in hopes that they would be able to pay for faster net speeds. (i.e. when someone does a Google search it would be faster because Google is paying ATT or whomever for faster access than say Yahoo or whoever). It is a bad idea all the way around. I can see no benefit to the average Internet user, and only more headaches for the ISP's. Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband providers network. If there is any application that I can think of that changes the rules of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say you sold a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no ISP has sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a small percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or had in mind that this type of usage would be common place when he first sold his services and set pricing. Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if we all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows movies-television shows at the same time across our network. That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video have a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to both our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee? Anyone else want to argue this? It's a good subject that we should be discussing. George Jack Unger wrote: Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I urge each one of you to: 1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/ 2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the American Constitution - Freedom of Speech. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html 3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality 4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save the Internet. 5. If you disagree, take action to support your position. 6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your position. So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone. Thank you for listening, jack -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
