Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners
CP has stopped selling Residential. Period. (That is what I was told). Regards, Peter Charles Wu wrote: Not to kick a dead horse here, but I heard the other day (from a WISP friend of mine) that Commpartners has stop installing WISP residential connections (due to E911 compliance issues) for the time being This sucks for him since he's already paid the $5k setup fee and his 1500+ wireless customers are all residential =( Can anyone verify this (right or wrong)? -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.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] VOIP / CommPartners
Not to kick a dead horse here, but I heard the other day (from a WISP friend of mine) that Commpartners has stop installing WISP residential connections (due to E911 compliance issues) for the time being This sucks for him since he's already paid the $5k setup fee and his 1500+ wireless customers are all residential =( Can anyone verify this (right or wrong)? -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.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] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipe provider" vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider
Charles, Just to be clear, we don't currently block or slow anything. We don;t technically have a VOIP service of our own yet. I'm simply debating the options. I am using Commpartners as an example, only because I had recent discussions with them this past summer, and they are fresh in my mind, but I am not targeting Commpartners directly in any way. My comments could apply to any VOIP wholesale provider, and should be interpreted as such. Port blocking is a very touchy subject right now, and in my mind a very important one that may define the outcome of VOIP and relationships between partners. A VOIP offering will become a significant part of my business, as it will be for most others as well, and I need to have a clear plan of how I'm going to go about competing in the space. Also on a side note, the reason I'm a little over POed on the Fee thing, was that I spent a month testing their service and negotiating terms and stuff. A whole marketing campaign was created around their service, lots of time spent. Then right after I got my first customer and signed the agreement and ready to fax it over, I saw the fine print that mentioned a $5000 fee, which I was never told about upfront or that was never mentioned once in our conversation over the month. So I got blind sided with the $5000 fee at the last minute. I thought they should have disclosed that to me before we started working with them, not a month later after the time was spent. SO then I developed the high and mighty attitude, that why should I pay a fee, I probably had just got pretty close to costing me $5000 in time just building my marketing plan. They should have waived it, at that point. The must have figured I'd be more likely to pay it after spedning all the time. I don't like to be squeezed that way. And the more I thought about it I started to boil thinking over the situation. I'm not really 100% sure what I believe yet on wether blocking should be done or not. But I don't like people that play that way. It reminds me of the high and might Covad, where what ever they say goes attitude. We are really only going to get one choice to get VOIP legislation done right, the way thatwill benefit us all. Wether the topic is what wholesale partners we should support, or wether its right to block traffic, the issues all apply to WISP's future of using VOIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:49 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipe provider" vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider performance to their VOIP servers over our network. Think about it, do you think I'm going to allow the same performance to our competitive VOIP provider as I do to our own VOIP services? By getting us to be a Partner for them, we'd optimize them for our own benefit, and indirectly Comm Parnters would guarantee that our network Not that I'm trying to start anything...but this is pretty dangerous ground to tread on If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of one's own traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that much different than FCC fines telco for VoIP Port Blocking http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/60405214 SBC Says "Google should pay to use our network" http://techdirt.com/articles/20051031/0354228_F.shtml In a larger context, it may come down to a strategy of providing "big dumb pipes" (like what the phone companies have done) or becoming end-to-end connectivity/content companies (like what the cable-cos have done) -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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (htmlformatted for easier reading)
Maybe we should not be selling broadband, but instead selling a license to use broadband off of our service. Can we all just start sellling licenses to get around network neutrality legislation? If one person can buy a license in other trades, why can we not sell it as a license? >2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; This is OK, because it does not state the QOS guarantee that the provider woyuld need to provide for that application. Therefore slowing down some traffic as the provider felt appropriate would be allowed. >1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; I fully agree with this except, it needs to be further defined to include who is classified as someone offering Internet access. Are you saying that from a Most Money Machine, I should be allowed to check my Email? Its is a network to. What makes my WISP any different than the MOney Machine Most network? I do not think "Broadband" and "network" should be bundled into the same thing as Internet Access. Internet access is just one value added service that a network provider may elect to add to its services for its subscribers. Internet access is not required for a network. The network may be done for other purposes. I'm actually aware of many networks that specifically restrict their users from being connected to the Internet from the same PC that uses their service, if they connect to their network, for security reasons. I believe that if a provider brands themselves as selling "Internet Access" then maybe they need to conform to a set of guideline that rule what they can and can not block, because they are a "internet Access" provider. What this means though is, I can sell a customer access to my network to pass VOIP between their offices or to the PSTN network through my termination provider, as long as I'm not selling them Internet access also. And then if by default I route all VOIP traffic across my private VOIP section of my network I should be able to get away with jsutifying a technical reason why I can't pass the subscribers VOIP data to the Internet, because otherwise I could not share the same network with my VOIP only services that don't use the Internet. I can't have the port routing two palces at once at the same time, unless I added a huge management headache of also tracking source and destination routing with the port. By I could argue that technology does not exist yet and would possible cause unbearable latency that would prevent the service from working. What this section says is that I can not be jsut a phone company anymore that only does VOICE. I now am requireed to be an Internet provider also. Power companies have networks. Are they now going to be forced to offer INternet access as well because they are a network operator? This should be changed to Consumers should be entitled to access the lawful INternet content of their choice, when purchasing "internet Access" from their network provider, provided that there is not a technical limitation preventing that or doing so does not unnecessarily restrict the other "non-Internet" services offered by the provider. This being done with the point that the same network may be sued for different purposes and service offering, and should be required to not require providers to unnecessarilly build two parallel network in the same area, when it can be shared, and with the undetstanding that TCP/IP protocols have been adopted for network operators regardless of wether they are offering "Internet Services". >Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge >Network Neutrality is the concept that network operators provide free and non-discriminatory transport on their networks between the endpoints >of the Internet. This has been a basic concept and function of the Internet since it was invented, and is adopted by the FCC in these four >principles to ensure that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable and accessible to all consumers: >1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; >2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; >3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and >4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. Now, lets open the floor for discussion... Tom DeReggiRapidDSL & Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:43 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartn
RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumbpipeprovider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (htmlformatted for easier reading)
>"Again, they should be held accountable for what they have built with PUBLIC MONEY." IMO, it's nearly impossible to do a 1/2 and 1/2 type of model I doubt there is any service provider out there who HAS NOT benefited in some manner from PUBLIC MONEY at some time (or who would want to close the door to access this opportunity) Remember, PUBLIC MONEY includes Erate / RUS Loans / Economic Development Grants / Tax Credits / etc (or the ability to access those types of contracts) Imagine how burdensome it'd be if, in order to do connecitivity business with a government entity, you would have to submit your network to some sort of "open access audit" it's either all regulated, or no regulation (now, in a non-regulated environment, free-market economics may spawn a market niche of "open access regulated-like free access" networks, but that's a whole other debate) -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.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] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (htmlformatted for easier reading)
Title: Message "the Internet is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality). " I fully agree that the above statement should be. However what is the true definaition of the Internet, and what is considered the doorway to the Internet? Because I connect to the Internet, and I transport my customers data to the Internet, does not mean that my network is in fact the Internet. I'm not a tier1 Internet transit provider. I believe it is wrong for a Tier1 national Internet backbone provider to discriminate traffic. However, that is not what most WISPs do. There is a difference between "Off-Net" and "On-Net" traffic. I operate a private transport network, just like IBM (business secure dialup network from years back), or Compuserve did years back. Should the fact that I provide a gateway to the INternet mean that I as well need to live by the rules of the FREE INternet? You know the FREE Internet, the one given to society from the governement (ARPANET). There is a reason that the subsidize Internet should stay FREE, it was partially paid for by the public and tax payer money. Or examples like MCI given the right to own and control the MAE-Easts and such. Maybe we should say that I should ahve uninhibited FREE access to your LAN? What the difference between a corporation's Private LAN or WAN and My WISP private transport network? The corporate private network also connects to the Internet and acts as a gateway to the Internet. I'd argue that a WISP is infact a value added connectivity service, just liek IBM, to offer an inhnaced feature over typical Internet. A enhanced low latency direct path that by-passes the city's local congestion on wired networks, the Internet. I actually advertise my service to be called "IntAirNet" the network that runs parallel to the Internet in the Skies above. I do not advertsie my services as Internet service, I call it IntAirNet. Why should I be enslaven by the rules of the Internet, thats not what I offer. I offer an accellerated path across my private network to get to the Internet. I should be able to control what goes across that network, or how can I truly guarantee that it stays an accelerated path to the INternet. I ahve a premium service that I require people to pay extra for for premium service. Maybe that means they need to use my VOIP service, if the want to use VOIP. Why should small private network operators with no subsidees or priveledges be bundled in with the mamonth ISPs, Telco, and Cable companies that are completely different situations all togeather. ONce you reach a certain size and have market control or monopolies a different set of rules need to apply. Otherwise consumers are at way to high a risk. And the decissions the Mamonths make way to big an effect on the economy. How quickly people forget these little details. Oh, by the way I've got subsidees for the last 50 years, Oh by the way lets forget that, and have it to my self now. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL & Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:43 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (htmlformatted for easier reading) You seem to be taking this beyond what anyone has stated. There maybe those that say the things that you claim above, however what yousaid was that "...preference of one's own traffic...is not that muchdifferent than..." and you went on to show a link to a story thatwas NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing. That is what I was pointingout. For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going beyond "topic debate" to "personal attacks" -- so I will restate my original point (which I may not have been completely clear on b/c this is a topic that I have been thinking of / examining for quite some time now, and things that seem obviously clear to me may not be so for a casual observer) Read the following article and tell me what you think http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the "prioritization" and/or "discrimination (or blocking taken to the Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets? If you think about it, prioritizing "certain my preferred packets" across my physical network is really no different than discriminating (depreferencing or blocking) my competitors -- in fact, the Network Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would argue that "allowin
Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
"Again, they should be held accountable for what they have built with PUBLIC MONEY." I also fully agree with that above statement. However, not every network operator has built their network with public money or monopoly subsidy. I personally invested close to a million dollars of my personal money to build my network. I have every right to optimize the chances and ways to get a speedy recovery of that investment. Its an asset I own and paid for. It has nothing to do with what a consumer deserves to have, ISP's rights, or LEC's rights. Companies that are solely independant and do not get to recieve subsidies, monopoly protection, USF funds, or public money, should not have to be restricted by the same rules as companies that do. Thats a big differenciator in this discussion. My views are different based on the situation of which companies are involved and preferencial benefits they've recieved or not.. Its no different than an owner of a football team. Because they spent the big bucks to own the football franchise, not only do they have the right to sell seats, but they have the rights to sell parking, and the rights to re-broadcast it. Quite honestly, the need to watch football, I believe is just as importnat to the nations male population, as it is for them to have broadband access. They seem to have the right to optimize the ways they get their return on their investments in their business. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:23 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading) On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going beyond "topic debate" to "personal attacks" -- so I will restate my If you are referring to my comment, you are missing the point. I am not, in any way, attacking you personally. I am simply saying that you are overstating what I see others saying. If you take it personally, you should re-read what I posted. Read the following article and tell me what you think http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_ their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full I'm not certain what you want to know. Personally (and this is probably not a popular opinion here), I think that if the network operator has the ability to offer a premium network service, they should be allowed to do that. I believe that I, as a network operator, should be allowed the same freedom. At the same time, I think that there should be NO PUBLIC MONEY involved in the pool here. Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the "prioritization" and/or "discrimination (or blocking taken to the Prioritization of "X" is NOT discrimination of "not X". THAT is the point I was making before. No matter how many times you say it, or how many ways you put it, it does not change a simple fact. Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets? If you think Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination. For instance, I block LOTS of traffic. I block ALL traffic to and from known "hacker havens". I do not accept mail from certain servers. I only allow certain volumes of P2P traffic to flow over my network. These things enhance my service for my subscribers. I have a few customers who have opted to move on to other ISPs as a result of these decisions. That is their choice, and in the end, it benefits my remaining subs all the more. The fact is, there has been customer movement in both directions. I have moved several customer ONTO my network for the same reason others have left. about it, prioritizing "certain my preferred packets" across my physical network is really no different than discriminating (depreferencing or blocking) my competitors -- in fact, the Network Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would argue that "allowing" certain providers to pay for prioritized / privilege access is Ok..now it's time for a personal attack. Those guys are KOOKS. The topic of debate that I am addressing is the argument between "it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network so I can do whatever I want" vs. "the Internet is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality). I have no problem with this debate. I think it is a silly debate, but there are others who will argue this till they are blue in the face. I don't have time to do that, so I will most likely bow out and watch from afar, as I have been doing. SBC started it, now B
Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
"Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination. " Well that depends how you do it and look at it. I do not believe in outright blocking completely. Allowing the call to go through in some capacity, does not hurt the consumer hard. 911 must still go through,etc. However, I pefer to suggest blocking by slowing down traffic. As a result only the QOS of the call goes down. Which incourages the Provider to pay up or play fair, for them to ahve adequate QOS, and equivellent service to the premium service I offer my clients with our own service. Do you really feel you should have to give competitors better service possibly than you give your own paying clients? I'd control it so my clients lways has a distinquishable improved quality of service. Is that wrong? Whats the difference really from prioritizing traffic versus slowing traffic? In directly it the same results. If I prioritize my traffic, by default the others traffic gets shoved behind and slowed, if I purposely slow down competitor's traffic it reserves bandwdith so that my customers do not get a degrated service level inadvertently. Slowing down may be a bit more agressive, but noe the less its the same result. The reasons is that by slowing down competitors traffic, there is a larger chance that the priority speed given to my subscriber will actually work. Its protection measures. Prioritzing on the other hand is not always doable based on limitations on the technology and nature of TCPIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:23 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading) On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going beyond "topic debate" to "personal attacks" -- so I will restate my If you are referring to my comment, you are missing the point. I am not, in any way, attacking you personally. I am simply saying that you are overstating what I see others saying. If you take it personally, you should re-read what I posted. Read the following article and tell me what you think http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_ their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full I'm not certain what you want to know. Personally (and this is probably not a popular opinion here), I think that if the network operator has the ability to offer a premium network service, they should be allowed to do that. I believe that I, as a network operator, should be allowed the same freedom. At the same time, I think that there should be NO PUBLIC MONEY involved in the pool here. Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the "prioritization" and/or "discrimination (or blocking taken to the Prioritization of "X" is NOT discrimination of "not X". THAT is the point I was making before. No matter how many times you say it, or how many ways you put it, it does not change a simple fact. Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets? If you think Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination. For instance, I block LOTS of traffic. I block ALL traffic to and from known "hacker havens". I do not accept mail from certain servers. I only allow certain volumes of P2P traffic to flow over my network. These things enhance my service for my subscribers. I have a few customers who have opted to move on to other ISPs as a result of these decisions. That is their choice, and in the end, it benefits my remaining subs all the more. The fact is, there has been customer movement in both directions. I have moved several customer ONTO my network for the same reason others have left. about it, prioritizing "certain my preferred packets" across my physical network is really no different than discriminating (depreferencing or blocking) my competitors -- in fact, the Network Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would argue that "allowing" certain providers to pay for prioritized / privilege access is Ok..now it's time for a personal attack. Those guys are KOOKS. The topic of debate that I am addressing is the argument between "it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network so I can do whatever I want" vs. "the Internet is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality). I have no problem with this debate. I think it is a silly debate, but there are others who will argue this till they are blue in the face. I don't have time to do that, so I will most likely bow out and watch from afar, as I
Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "bigdumbpipe provider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider(html formatted for easier reading)
Charles, Some very good points. However, lets look at it from another angle. What message is the VOIP wholesale provider sending, with their currently mentality, for them to decide who they will and will not allow to play in the VOIP space? More or less, I consider CommPartners an RBOC equivellent of VOIP. They are discriminating on which ISPs can and can't use their VOIP. They are saying, we'll give your competitors the Cable Companies and CLECs access to our VOIP network to compete against you, but we will not give you access to our VOIP network to defend yourselves, unless you PAYS US. Thats like Mafia protection money, in my mind. The CommPartners of the world are starting the war. They decide to take the end users for themselves or their preferred partners. So with Eye for an eye mentality If they restrict me from their network, why should I not restrcit them from mine? This is not an issue of legislation. This is an issue of market pressure. Do we support Wholeslae partners that are discriminary to our own industry that is our life blood? You could argue that the CommPartners aren't descriminary because they equally charge every one huge initiation fees. But then again, I could argue that that same mentality didn't fly when the Cable Companies denied ISPs access to their fiber, arguing they equally gave ISPs the option to pay million for the access. Same principle just different scale. I could argue that I wasn't being descriminary if I equally was charging all VOIP providers the same fee for optimization. What MCI did was more exceptable. They did not disallow partners. They just had different plans, based on the partners volume. So the partners could get better terms as the increased their dedication to the business and volume. But didn't need to abandon the initial model when they reached that size. At what point does a service provider (VOIP) get to the size that they have a strategic advantage above all other providers in the space, that they should be treated the same as a connectivity wholesale provider / monopoly such as a RBOC? The second a vendor of any type, starts saying I'm going to allow these guys but not these guys, things can get ugly. Its not a problem if the ISP mutually does not select that wholesale provider. But what when that provider gains enough market share, and the ISP would have wanted that partnership to be competitive? In my mind, someone is either with me, or against me. And if not with me, they are a threat, because their success could help my competitors, and this is a ruthless competitive world. If someone is not with me, than in my mind they are on their own, and anything goes, because I have no obligation to support someone that has chosen not to support me by terms I consider fair. I think everyone in this industry has to think really hard who their allies are and who is their competition is. Supporting the competition, in the long run could mean death to yourself eventually. We need to support the people that support us as an industry. I am not passing judgement on which companies should or shouldn't be supported, nor am I passing judgement on the method that should be used to support or fight back against companies that are our competitors. I'm just saying that the purpose of groups like WISPA, is that there is strength in numbers and unity. And we need to use that unity to demand competitive advantage in this industry. I've seen little negotiations/advantages won for the membership benefit by leveraging WISPA's weight as a group. I'd like to see more of that take place. I personally, can;t use WISPA's weight to move forward my negotiations independantly, because I am not authorized to do so on WISPA's behave. This is not meant to be a complaint regarding WISPA, just a suggestion on possible goals for WISPA. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:34 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "bigdumbpipe provider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider(html formatted for easier reading) The way I see it is this: (automatic insertion of my .o2 cents) If Bell South can charge people extra for added services I can too. You pay extra for call waiting, call forwarding, call blocking...etc - - - you pay extra on my internet service to have me give your VoIP packets prioritization! My packet prioritization is an extra added "value" service that I am not required to do - I offer it as a service to my PAYING clients. < beating chest & flailing arms wildly > :-P Well said (note, I am still undecided on which side of the fence to sit on) To summarize, the
RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: If memory serves me correctly, BPS Networks / Telephone is an rural ILEC -- you deploy wireless in areas where it doesn't make sense to deploy DSL over your own infrastructure BPS Networks is an ISP that is partnered with BPS Telephone (an ILEC). Now, this isn't meant as a comdemnation or anything, but knowing this background information about you helps me understand your position (which, IMO, is quite enviable) -- the potential of losing access to the services offered by local loop is not a possibility since you own the local loop -- so this discussion is immaterial =) My position has little to do with my partnership. I have NO interest (financial interest, that is) in the success or failure of BPS Telephone. In truth, if they fail, I gain (because I don't have the "strings" keeping me from providing a more profitable wireless service inside their border. _I_ (the ISP) do not own the local loop. In fact, I am growing more an more frustrated with them due to their inablility to focus on reality and accept the future of telecommunications (which WILL include a significant VoIP factor). But that is another argument entirely. ;-) As a result, you have the luxury of being able to watch from the "woodwork" My "luxury" to do this is not due to my partners as much as it is the fact that I simply don't have time to say the same thing over and over again to a group that is replying with the same thing over and over again, and neither of us (not "you and I", but our respective "camps") is able to agree on anything other than we are both tired of trying to prove our point. This is not something that will be resolved, IMHO. BTW, my opinions are based MUCH more on my ISP background (going back to 1991) than any partnership with BPS. Just an FYI. -- Butch Evans BPS Networks http://www.bpsnetworks.com/ Bernie, MO Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
John Scrivner wrote: I am not too concerned. It is only about $40K a month in recurring monthly revenues off the SBC network! :-)I do worry what the phone company will do but I am nearly making as much off of wireless now as I am off the ILEC copper so in a year or so I could "snip snip" the little copper habit I still have going on. Right now I would obviously suffer some serious withdrawal. By the way, I resisted the DSL temptation completely. I do not have a single DSL on my billing. I do have a few T1s and several hundred dialup connections. I tend to think the tariff regulated services will be around for a while yet. Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part? Scriv Not wishful thinking. 2+ years ago we switched away from Qwest, our ILEC, to competitive clecs and dumped DSL and T-1. Wasn't enough T-1's and what we did have we converted to wireless. We had a fiber OC3 from Qwest. And support wise, DSL was almost as bad as dial up. Now the only bill I get from a telephone company, is from clecs, and that is for a few pots for our office and a managed modem pool from another clec, and the voip service naturally isn't Qwest. My upstream is a regional fiber carrier who delivers me fiber ethernet. Our broadband is all wireless and we'll be adding pretty soon. Significant savings in avoiding the ILEC. 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] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
I am not too concerned. It is only about $40K a month in recurring monthly revenues off the SBC network! :-)I do worry what the phone company will do but I am nearly making as much off of wireless now as I am off the ILEC copper so in a year or so I could "snip snip" the little copper habit I still have going on. Right now I would obviously suffer some serious withdrawal. By the way, I resisted the DSL temptation completely. I do not have a single DSL on my billing. I do have a few T1s and several hundred dialup connections. I tend to think the tariff regulated services will be around for a while yet. Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part? Scriv However, there are a lot of people out there (for example Scrivner) that are still dependent on the local ILEC for a lot of services (for example, accessing copper to offer dial-up, DSL, T1 or a slew of other connectivity solutions. In his case, there is a concern because he stands to lose a significant amount of business should the ILEC get the ability to arbitrarily "cut him off" On the extreme side, one CLEC, XO, seeing this situation, has decided to "ditch the UNE access business" and focus exclusively on wireless (old news): http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/110805-xo-spinoff.html -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.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] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
Do that. I will watch from the "woodwork". If memory serves me correctly, BPS Networks / Telephone is an rural ILEC -- you deploy wireless in areas where it doesn't make sense to deploy DSL over your own infrastructure Now, this isn't meant as a comdemnation or anything, but knowing this background information about you helps me understand your position (which, IMO, is quite enviable) -- the potential of losing access to the services offered by local loop is not a possibility since you own the local loop -- so this discussion is immaterial =) As a result, you have the luxury of being able to watch from the "woodwork" The original poster, Tom DeReggi, happens to operate an "ILEC-Free" network (e.g., it's all leased dark fiber and wireless), and is thus also unaffected by the various access debates, and thus (rightfully, IMO) believes that he should be able to do whatever he wants with his network... However, there are a lot of people out there (for example Scrivner) that are still dependent on the local ILEC for a lot of services (for example, accessing copper to offer dial-up, DSL, T1 or a slew of other connectivity solutions. In his case, there is a concern because he stands to lose a significant amount of business should the ILEC get the ability to arbitrarily "cut him off" On the extreme side, one CLEC, XO, seeing this situation, has decided to "ditch the UNE access business" and focus exclusively on wireless (old news): http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/110805-xo-spinoff.html -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.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] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumbpipe provider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
The way I see it is this: (automatic insertion of my .o2 cents) If Bell South can charge people extra for added services I can too. You pay extra for call waiting, call forwarding, call blocking...etc - - - you pay extra on my internet service to have me give your VoIP packets prioritization! My packet prioritization is an extra added "value" service that I am not required to do - I offer it as a service to my PAYING clients. < beating chest & flailing arms wildly > :-P Well said (note, I am still undecided on which side of the fence to sit on) To summarize, the statement could be as follows: "I built this network with my blood, sweat and tears, and I'll be @[EMAIL PROTECTED] if I'm gonna submit to governmental regulation that forces me to ensure the competitors / others can freeload off of my hard work" However, there are several things to be aware of when taking on this position For starters, it is worth noting that generally speaking, very few of the more successful (I define success in terms of profitability) WISPs are actually "pureplay WISPs" (now, there will always be an exception, someone like Matt Larsen or Dorian Banks comes to mind) -- but the majority of guys (e.g., Scriv, R Harnish, Marlon, Travis Johnson, Sam Rozenthal, Paul Diem, etc) can be better classified as connectivity / networking service providers...broadband wireless, along with DSL, dial-up, computer support, etc just happens one means of servicing a paying customer (basically, it boils down to cost economics, as in I, the operator, will use whatever technology is best to provide an acceptable level of service to meet my customer's requirements) However, my options will change dramatically (for better or worse is a different debate) over the next few years if we are to support the ideas of the above statement. Going along this line of reasoning (pushing towards intermodal competition) -- it's only a matter of time before the ILEC can theoretically cut off all of my resold services (in this case, dial-up, DSL, T1s, ISDN, Frame Relay) and block any/and all access you have to their network So, the thought that needs to be remembered is is that if I start giving preference (traffic wise) to certain partners/vendors/alliances because they will pay me money, I am setting the precendence for losing access to the copper infrastructure (no more dial-up, T1s, DSL). Now, the big question worth debating is what's better off for the operator...e.g., will the additional revenue from collecting tolls/fees for "premium value added services" offset the loss from being denied access -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumbpipe provider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading) Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. www.inetsouth.com www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts) 318-728-8600 - Rayville 318-728-9600 Butch Evans wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: > >> For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going >> beyond "topic debate" to "personal attacks" -- so I will restate my > > > If you are referring to my comment, you are missing the point. I am > not, in any way, attacking you personally. I am simply saying that > you are overstating what I see others saying. If you take it > personally, you should re-read what I posted. > >> Read the following article and tell me what you think >> http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_ >> their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full > > > I'm not certain what you want to know. Personally (and this is > probably not a popular opinion here), I think that if the network > operator has the ability to offer a premium network service, they > should be allowed to do that. I believe that I, as a network > operator, should be allowed the same freedom. At the same time, I > think that there should be NO PUBLIC MONEY involved in the pool here. > >> Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the >> following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the >> "prioritization" and/or "discrimination (or blocking taken to the > > > Prioritization of "X" is NOT discrimination of "not X". THAT is the > point I was making before. No matter how many times you say it, or > how many ways you put it, it does not change a simple fact. > >> Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets? If
Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipe provider"vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
The way I see it is this: (automatic insertion of my .o2 cents) If Bell South can charge people extra for added services I can too. You pay extra for call waiting, call forwarding, call blocking...etc - - - you pay extra on my internet service to have me give your VoIP packets prioritization! My packet prioritization is an extra added "value" service that I am not required to do - I offer it as a service to my PAYING clients. < beating chest & flailing arms wildly > :-P Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. www.inetsouth.com www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts) 318-728-8600 - Rayville 318-728-9600 Butch Evans wrote: On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going beyond "topic debate" to "personal attacks" -- so I will restate my If you are referring to my comment, you are missing the point. I am not, in any way, attacking you personally. I am simply saying that you are overstating what I see others saying. If you take it personally, you should re-read what I posted. Read the following article and tell me what you think http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_ their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full I'm not certain what you want to know. Personally (and this is probably not a popular opinion here), I think that if the network operator has the ability to offer a premium network service, they should be allowed to do that. I believe that I, as a network operator, should be allowed the same freedom. At the same time, I think that there should be NO PUBLIC MONEY involved in the pool here. Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the "prioritization" and/or "discrimination (or blocking taken to the Prioritization of "X" is NOT discrimination of "not X". THAT is the point I was making before. No matter how many times you say it, or how many ways you put it, it does not change a simple fact. Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets? If you think Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination. For instance, I block LOTS of traffic. I block ALL traffic to and from known "hacker havens". I do not accept mail from certain servers. I only allow certain volumes of P2P traffic to flow over my network. These things enhance my service for my subscribers. I have a few customers who have opted to move on to other ISPs as a result of these decisions. That is their choice, and in the end, it benefits my remaining subs all the more. The fact is, there has been customer movement in both directions. I have moved several customer ONTO my network for the same reason others have left. about it, prioritizing "certain my preferred packets" across my physical network is really no different than discriminating (depreferencing or blocking) my competitors -- in fact, the Network Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would argue that "allowing" certain providers to pay for prioritized / privilege access is Ok..now it's time for a personal attack. Those guys are KOOKS. The topic of debate that I am addressing is the argument between "it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network so I can do whatever I want" vs. "the Internet is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality). I have no problem with this debate. I think it is a silly debate, but there are others who will argue this till they are blue in the face. I don't have time to do that, so I will most likely bow out and watch from afar, as I have been doing. SBC started it, now BellSouth is getting into the act. Two articles (1, 2) highlight comments made by William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth, about how he'd really like to be able to charge internet companies for priority access to his network and customers. While I believe SBC (and BS <-- Is it just me, or does THIS abbreviation belong with ALL the RBOCs?) would be shooting themselves in the foot, they ought to be free to attempt to do this. Again, they should be held accountable for what they have built with PUBLIC MONEY. Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge KOOKS! I can only agree with about 25% of what they say. Even that is a liberal guess. Here are my retorts to the KOOK statements. 1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide which network operator offers them the best "bang for their buck". 2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide which network operator offers them the best "bang for their buck". 3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to deci
RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipe provider"vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going beyond "topic debate" to "personal attacks" -- so I will restate my If you are referring to my comment, you are missing the point. I am not, in any way, attacking you personally. I am simply saying that you are overstating what I see others saying. If you take it personally, you should re-read what I posted. Read the following article and tell me what you think http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_ their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full I'm not certain what you want to know. Personally (and this is probably not a popular opinion here), I think that if the network operator has the ability to offer a premium network service, they should be allowed to do that. I believe that I, as a network operator, should be allowed the same freedom. At the same time, I think that there should be NO PUBLIC MONEY involved in the pool here. Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the "prioritization" and/or "discrimination (or blocking taken to the Prioritization of "X" is NOT discrimination of "not X". THAT is the point I was making before. No matter how many times you say it, or how many ways you put it, it does not change a simple fact. Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets? If you think Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination. For instance, I block LOTS of traffic. I block ALL traffic to and from known "hacker havens". I do not accept mail from certain servers. I only allow certain volumes of P2P traffic to flow over my network. These things enhance my service for my subscribers. I have a few customers who have opted to move on to other ISPs as a result of these decisions. That is their choice, and in the end, it benefits my remaining subs all the more. The fact is, there has been customer movement in both directions. I have moved several customer ONTO my network for the same reason others have left. about it, prioritizing "certain my preferred packets" across my physical network is really no different than discriminating (depreferencing or blocking) my competitors -- in fact, the Network Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would argue that "allowing" certain providers to pay for prioritized / privilege access is Ok..now it's time for a personal attack. Those guys are KOOKS. The topic of debate that I am addressing is the argument between "it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network so I can do whatever I want" vs. "the Internet is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality). I have no problem with this debate. I think it is a silly debate, but there are others who will argue this till they are blue in the face. I don't have time to do that, so I will most likely bow out and watch from afar, as I have been doing. SBC started it, now BellSouth is getting into the act. Two articles (1, 2) highlight comments made by William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth, about how he'd really like to be able to charge internet companies for priority access to his network and customers. While I believe SBC (and BS <-- Is it just me, or does THIS abbreviation belong with ALL the RBOCs?) would be shooting themselves in the foot, they ought to be free to attempt to do this. Again, they should be held accountable for what they have built with PUBLIC MONEY. Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge KOOKS! I can only agree with about 25% of what they say. Even that is a liberal guess. Here are my retorts to the KOOK statements. 1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide which network operator offers them the best "bang for their buck". 2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide which network operator offers them the best "bang for their buck". 3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide which network operator offers them the best "bang for their buck". 4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. Hmm...1 out of 4...pretty close to 25% as I said above. Now, lets open the floor for discussion... Do that. I will watch from the "woodwork". -- Butch Evans BPS Networks http://www.bpsnetworks.com/ Bernie, MO Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipe provider"vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
Title: Message You seem to be taking this beyond what anyone has stated. There maybe those that say the things that you claim above, however what yousaid was that "...preference of one's own traffic...is not that muchdifferent than..." and you went on to show a link to a story thatwas NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing. That is what I was pointingout. For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going beyond "topic debate" to "personal attacks" -- so I will restate my original point (which I may not have been completely clear on b/c this is a topic that I have been thinking of / examining for quite some time now, and things that seem obviously clear to me may not be so for a casual observer) Read the following article and tell me what you think http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the "prioritization" and/or "discrimination (or blocking taken to the Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets? If you think about it, prioritizing "certain my preferred packets" across my physical network is really no different than discriminating (depreferencing or blocking) my competitors -- in fact, the Network Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would argue that "allowing" certain providers to pay for prioritized / privilege access is extortion. The topic of debate that I am addressing is the argument between "it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network so I can do whatever I want" vs. "the Internet is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality). The it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network argumentSBC started it, now BellSouth is getting into the act. Two articles (1, 2) highlight comments made by William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth, about how he’d really like to be able to charge internet companies for priority access to his network and customers.A senior telecommunications executive said yesterday that Internet service providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web sites or services priority in reaching computer users, a controversial system that would significantly change how the Internet operates.William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.Or, Smith said, his company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that its service can operate with the same quality as BellSouth’s offering.Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge Network Neutrality is the concept that network operators provide free and non-discriminatory transport on their networks between the endpoints of the Internet. This has been a basic concept and function of the Internet since it was invented, and is adopted by the FCC in these four principles to ensure that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable and accessible to all consumers: 1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; 2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; 3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and 4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. Now, lets open the floor for discussion... -Charles---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://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] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipe provider" vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: If you take this line reasoning a few iterations further, it can easily become a "that @[EMAIL PROTECTED] competitor is riding my network for free to access my customers, so I'm just gonna cut them off" type of discussion Let me show you again what I responded to: If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of one's own traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that much different than You seem to be taking this beyond what anyone has stated. There may be those that say the things that you claim above, however what you said was that "...preference of one's own traffic...is not that much different than..." and you went on to show a link to a story that was NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing. That is what I was pointing out. Not your "few iterations further" argument (which, BTW, I think is out of proportion, too). In other words, you are pointing out something to which I did not respond. You are defending something I am not attacking. -- Butch Evans BPS Networks http://www.bpsnetworks.com/ Bernie, MO Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipe provider" vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider
Not sure how you see any kind of parallel between adding priority to one traffic and not another, vs blocking a certain class of traffic. The second seems almost a natural progression of the first Take for example the CLEC/ILEC models Back in the 90s, the attitude amongst ILECs was "adding priority to ILECs services and just make life miserable for competition" In 2005, it has evolved into "@[EMAIL PROTECTED] those CLECs, we'll just cut em off completely." WISPs, IMO aren't that much different than the ILEC from an infrastructure standpoint (I would imagine that 10+ years from now...there will be markets where WISPs have developed a monopoly by forcing the copper and cable guys out of the market) This discussion is almost a parallel analogy of the ILEC/CLEC debate -- in this case, it's still boils down to the "why should I just let you run advanced $$$ generating services over MY NETWORK" Compare The concept of allowing Internet/Broadband (advanced service) over a telephone line (infrastructure) Vs. The concept of allowing VoIP (advanced service) over a WISP connection (infrastructue) Say a partner (aka commpartners) signs a deal with me that makes me want to "feature" them as a preferred provider (e.g., a residual, lump some, etc) -- such a deal would have some sort of performance incentive built in (e.g., they would just hand me a check for $10k and say, put us on your website...marketing / reseller programs are all "success-based" these days, meaning that you pay for click-throughs, new activations, etc) That said, I (the service provider) will have some sort of incentive to "promote" my partner to the customer -- in addition to featuring them on marketing (e.g., stuffing additional envelopes, putting them on a splash page), I may endeaver to ensure that their traffic type performs "better" on my network. Now, there are 2 ways of making things "better" -- 1 is to "improve" the traffic flow of my partners, the other would be to "degrade" the traffic flow of the competition If you take this line reasoning a few iterations further, it can easily become a "that @[EMAIL PROTECTED] competitor is riding my network for free to access my customers, so I'm just gonna cut them off" type of discussion -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipe provider" vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: >If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of >one's own traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that >much different than These are nowhere NEAR the same thing. Let me give an example. Let's say that my webserver is something I want to be considered priority over all other hosts on my network. I simply set up my QOS to make that traffic priority over ANY other traffic on my network. Same thing if it is a VOIP server. I am not changing the traffic in any way, nor am I restricting their traffic. I am simply insuring (as far as I can) the traffic that I want to be priority on MY network. That is not what happened with that other case (and you know this). If I do what I described above, can Google come in and sue me because THEIR web traffic is not prioritized on my network? Not at all. Having said that, if Google wants to come in and pay me $XXX (maybe a couple more X's), then you can BET that I WILL add priority to their traffic. > FCC fines telco for VoIP Port Blocking > http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/60405214 -- Butch Evans BPS Networks http://www.bpsnetworks.com/ Bernie, MO Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- 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] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipe provider" vs. end-to-end connectivity/content provider
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of one's own traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that much different than These are nowhere NEAR the same thing. Let me give an example. Let's say that my webserver is something I want to be considered priority over all other hosts on my network. I simply set up my QOS to make that traffic priority over ANY other traffic on my network. Same thing if it is a VOIP server. I am not changing the traffic in any way, nor am I restricting their traffic. I am simply insuring (as far as I can) the traffic that I want to be priority on MY network. That is not what happened with that other case (and you know this). If I do what I described above, can Google come in and sue me because THEIR web traffic is not prioritized on my network? Not at all. Having said that, if Google wants to come in and pay me $XXX (maybe a couple more X's), then you can BET that I WILL add priority to their traffic. Not sure how you see any kind of parallel between adding priority to one traffic and not another, vs blocking a certain class of traffic. FCC fines telco for VoIP Port Blocking http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/60405214 -- Butch Evans BPS Networks http://www.bpsnetworks.com/ Bernie, MO Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipe provider" vs. end-to-end connectivity/content provider
performance to their VOIP servers over our network. Think about it, do you think I'm going to allow the same performance to our competitive VOIP provider as I do to our own VOIP services? By getting us to be a Partner for them, we'd optimize them for our own benefit, and indirectly Comm Parnters would guarantee that our network Not that I'm trying to start anything...but this is pretty dangerous ground to tread on If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of one's own traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that much different than FCC fines telco for VoIP Port Blocking http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/60405214 SBC Says "Google should pay to use our network" http://techdirt.com/articles/20051031/0354228_F.shtml In a larger context, it may come down to a strategy of providing "big dumb pipes" (like what the phone companies have done) or becoming end-to-end connectivity/content companies (like what the cable-cos have done) -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/
[WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners
I've recomended CommPartners many times to WISPs, as a good choice for someone thats willing to pay the upfront fee, as their QOS and Value is high compared to other offerings in the space. Sales team was very responsive. Technically they were very responsive as well and appeared to be solid. However, now that someone has responded to my original post, its got me thinking, and I have to vent a small rampage. I agree and understand your explanation, and Commpartner's intent. I just think its the wrong view to have. There is no need for resellers (middle men) in VOIP. It just creates billing/cashflow headaches for everyone involved, not to mention support issues. That problem was learned with the DSL model. With DSL it was justified because the cost to have a DS3 pipe to each small volume ISP provider just wasn't realistic. So it was a technology barrier and cost barrier that justified the middleman model that included resellers. In VOIP there is no value added by the middle man, to justify it. There are better way to motivate partners than to create barrier to entry. What it really does is just deter partnerships from ever happening. Big volume is made by having a lot of small partners that sell a little bit, rather than a few partners that sell a lot. It sends a message that Commpartners only wants to deal with the big fish, or our competitors (ILECS / Cable companies), and thats not what I call an allie. How much time does it really take for a wholesaler like Commpartners to deal with a small WISP doing low volume? Its an automated web portal to do business!!! The truth is, the $5000 fee is a way for CommPartners to cover it's sales people's commissions. Wholesalers need to put as many resellers on the street as they can, some work, some don't, and if there are enough out there trying, the odds are you'll also get the ones that are successful. Everyone has potential, its near impossible to know in advance which partners end up being the volume ones. All that should matter is if there is scenargy between the two partner companies, and a likely hood that their is a match in the vision of the two parties. If CommPartners can't cost justify partnerships with low volume WISPs, then it really means CommPartners is not yet at the stage where it is automated enough yet, or its operations are not yet efficient enough to handle a large number of partners. That exposes a weakness in CommPartners. Success in VOIP is a race to obtain subscribers. They should be taking on EVERY partner they can get their hands on. If they don't recognize that, I fear they may not be one of the survivors, and should I select a VOIP provider that I think may not survive? Just about 50% of my subscribers use VOIP today, only two of them use the CommPartners reseller that I recommend and use. Thats because my clients want to buy VOIP from me, not from someone I refer. Otherwise they shop it. I'm the marketing engine who has the customer's trust, not a third party reseller. Its me that knows about how to get to my client, not the third party reseller. So what if I do high volume, why is it necessary for a partnership? The relationship is as easy to manage as a List server and a web portal. This is a commodity market, customers want cheapest price, and the person responsible for customer retention and sales should be rewarded by commissions, not a middle man that serves no valid purpose. There is no room for a middle man. If there is, the offering will not be competitive enough for consumers, or not profitable enough for us to bother marketing. I do not recommend that any WISP sell VOIP through a middle man. There is to big a risk not having a contractual agreement between you (WISP) and wholesaler that is providing service to your end user. The man in the middle makes it impossible for the WISP to protect themselves legally in the partnership. Its a disaster waiting to happen. The only way I think buying from a reseller makes since is, if you are also buying other bundled services from the reseller as well. For example, if a wholesale WISP, was a reseller for a company like a CommPArtner, and bundled that for its resellers and agents, that would make since. Just about all WISPs or ISPs will have resellers, agents, or referall partners. So its logical for a WISP to become a direct reseller partner for a wholesle VOIP provider like Commpartners. But why would a WISP want top take on a service from a provider that they as well could not extend to their resellers and agents? Four levels deep is undoable in VOIP. CommPartners needs to understand that WISPs have resellers. Charging someone for Partnership is the most rediculaous thing that I have ever heard in my life. Its just stupid. That why we never ended up partnering with CommPartners directly. Its not that we couldn't afford the $5000, its just that why should we pay it? What value did I receive for
