[AFMUG] Net neutrality
Anyone else see this yet? https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46274530 Thank you, Brett A Mansfield
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
It's also now possible with hulu (just noticed). bp On 2/11/2015 10:44 PM, Jeremy wrote: This is only possible on Netflix, but will allow them 10x the movies per month (7GB per hour vs. 0.7GB per hour).
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
To put things in perspective, Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent was in 2007,
they stopped doing it, and there was a class action settlement in 2010.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/claim-your-16-comcast-p2p-settlement-now-final/
So it’s good the FCC is jumping on that problem 8 years later.
I refuse to view the dispute between Comcast and Netflix about paid peering as
a “net neutrality” issue. This is all about money and power. It is just
laughable that people believe government regulation is the answer to keeping
the Internet open and free. Yep, that’s what governments do best.
I don’t even believe the government would be able to arbitrate disputes between
these giant corporations, given that almost every player in government is
beholden to one side or the other.
From: David
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Exactly the way it should be
LOL
If you havent posted your letter to FCC and congress dont cry if you get caught
up in the mix.
On 02/11/2015 12:18 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
Right, so punish Comcast, not WISPs.
One jackass breaks the law, so lets punish everyone. Just like public school
all over again. Apparently we never outgrow this stupidity.
From: David
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:58 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Agreed...
Thanks Comcast :)
On 02/11/2015 11:21 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
That's what got us into the mess we're now in.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: "Brett A Mansfield" mailto:br...@silverlakeinternet.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:20:07 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to
a paid service without getting anything from it? It’s like telling a retailer
that they can sell their product in the mall without having to pay any rent.
Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield
Silver Lake Internet
> On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com wrote:
>
> Block legal content? No.
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
>
> I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will
make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service
completely? For example, the new sling TV?
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
>> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote:
>>
>> I've sent letters to my senator and representative.
>>
>> We'll see.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield
>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
>>
>>
>> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the
FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me
to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to
pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require
that I raise prices to cover my increased costs.
>>
>> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my
network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls.
>>
>> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond
what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If
it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest
every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed
or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture,
and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it
would certainly help.
>>
>> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any
ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing
here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to
begin of what we could really do to stop this.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>
>
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Exactly the way it should be LOL If you havent posted your letter to FCC and congress dont cry if you get caught up in the mix. On 02/11/2015 12:18 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote: Right, so punish Comcast, not WISPs. One jackass breaks the law, so lets punish everyone. Just like public school all over again. Apparently we never outgrow this stupidity. *From:* David <mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:58 AM *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" Agreed... Thanks Comcast :) On 02/11/2015 11:21 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: That's what got us into the mess we're now in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *"Brett A Mansfield" mailto:br...@silverlakeinternet.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:20:07 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to a paid service without getting anything from it? It’s like telling a retailer that they can sell their product in the mall without having to pay any rent. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield Silver Lake Internet > On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com wrote: > > Block legal content? No. > > > -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service completely? For example, the new sling TV? > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: >> >> I've sent letters to my senator and representative. >> >> We'll see. >> >> >> >> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" >> >> >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. >> >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. >> >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. >> >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
You may not call that UBB, but without it we'd have many, many people using over 1TB per month. That is where our sales tactic becomes important. I point them to our competitors hidden limits, I have the pages printed out for local events, I educate the customers who thought that they were unlimited, on the fact that our limits are actually higher. Truth in advertising in very important to me. One of the first things in my sales pitch is addressing that disconnect, that 'deception' by their current provider. I point them to their own provider's webpage for the facts. That is exactly what sets us apart...honesty. If you can engage a customer long enough to get that across to them you will be victorious. If not...they can stay with the lesser competitor. Also, instructing them on how to change their 'data rate per hour' is essential. This is only possible on Netflix, but will allow them 10x the movies per month (7GB per hour vs. 0.7GB per hour). If they use Apple TV or Amazon then forget it. Most people who stream in excess of two hours per day in HD will surpass 300GB, so education at the time of installation, or during the sales process, is of utmost importance. I refer the heavy users to our competitors or offer them one of our dedicated connections (which are unlimited). Most customers do not want to pay $250-500 a month for unlimited...but many business do. I actually prefer to lose those customers. Our service can maintain our advertised speeds, theirs cannot. That is how we deal with the cord cutters. YMMV. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Jason McKemie < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: > A 300gb cap with a fee thereafter (or reduced speed) is not what I would > consider UBB (maybe hybrid UBB). Also, upfront is good in theory, but most > people won't ever even make it to the "cap" - IMO, they'll see your "limit" > and not your competitor's, thus putting you at a disadvantage. > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jeremy wrote: > >> Who are you competing against? We have Century Link, Comcast, and Digis >> as our main competitorsall of which have a 'Abuse Policy' that has >> limits hidden in it. We are just upfront about it. 300GB per month, 50 >> cents per GB thereafter. Simple. Use SlingBox to your hearts content...up >> to 300GB. >> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Jason McKemie < >> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: >> >>> That's not a solution if it makes you non-competitive. >>> >>> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jeremy wrote: >>> The solution is easy. Usage Based Billing. Unlimited is nuts for a WISP, unless you have the spectrum to put 8 people per Access Point... On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 2/11/15 9:20, Brett A Mansfield wrote: > >> It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone >> access to a paid service without getting anything from it? >> > > > The customer pays you for internet access, right? That's what you > "get" from it. > > ~Seth > >>
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
A 300gb cap with a fee thereafter (or reduced speed) is not what I would consider UBB (maybe hybrid UBB). Also, upfront is good in theory, but most people won't ever even make it to the "cap" - IMO, they'll see your "limit" and not your competitor's, thus putting you at a disadvantage. On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jeremy wrote: > Who are you competing against? We have Century Link, Comcast, and Digis > as our main competitorsall of which have a 'Abuse Policy' that has > limits hidden in it. We are just upfront about it. 300GB per month, 50 > cents per GB thereafter. Simple. Use SlingBox to your hearts content...up > to 300GB. > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Jason McKemie < > j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > > wrote: > >> That's not a solution if it makes you non-competitive. >> >> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jeremy > > wrote: >> >>> The solution is easy. Usage Based Billing. Unlimited is nuts for a >>> WISP, unless you have the spectrum to put 8 people per Access Point... >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Seth Mattinen >>> wrote: >>> On 2/11/15 9:20, Brett A Mansfield wrote: > It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone > access to a paid service without getting anything from it? > The customer pays you for internet access, right? That's what you "get" from it. ~Seth >>> >>> >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Of course, the cellcos solve this with wordplay. Like having 2 types of plans, “shared data” and “unlimited”. Where shared data means usage based billing. And unlimited customers get throttled if shared data customers need the bandwidth. So unlimited means all you can eat (from the dumpster out back) once our more important customers who pay $10 per gigabyte have eaten their fill. From: Jason McKemie Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:13 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" That's not a solution if it makes you non-competitive. On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jeremy wrote: The solution is easy. Usage Based Billing. Unlimited is nuts for a WISP, unless you have the spectrum to put 8 people per Access Point... On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 2/11/15 9:20, Brett A Mansfield wrote: It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to a paid service without getting anything from it? The customer pays you for internet access, right? That's what you "get" from it. ~Seth
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Who are you competing against? We have Century Link, Comcast, and Digis as our main competitorsall of which have a 'Abuse Policy' that has limits hidden in it. We are just upfront about it. 300GB per month, 50 cents per GB thereafter. Simple. Use SlingBox to your hearts content...up to 300GB. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Jason McKemie < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: > That's not a solution if it makes you non-competitive. > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jeremy wrote: > >> The solution is easy. Usage Based Billing. Unlimited is nuts for a >> WISP, unless you have the spectrum to put 8 people per Access Point... >> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Seth Mattinen >> wrote: >> >>> On 2/11/15 9:20, Brett A Mansfield wrote: >>> It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to a paid service without getting anything from it? >>> >>> >>> The customer pays you for internet access, right? That's what you "get" >>> from it. >>> >>> ~Seth >>> >> >>
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
That's not a solution if it makes you non-competitive. On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jeremy wrote: > The solution is easy. Usage Based Billing. Unlimited is nuts for a WISP, > unless you have the spectrum to put 8 people per Access Point... > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Seth Mattinen > wrote: > >> On 2/11/15 9:20, Brett A Mansfield wrote: >> >>> It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access >>> to a paid service without getting anything from it? >>> >> >> >> The customer pays you for internet access, right? That's what you "get" >> from it. >> >> ~Seth >> > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
The solution is easy. Usage Based Billing. Unlimited is nuts for a WISP, unless you have the spectrum to put 8 people per Access Point... On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 2/11/15 9:20, Brett A Mansfield wrote: > >> It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access >> to a paid service without getting anything from it? >> > > > The customer pays you for internet access, right? That's what you "get" > from it. > > ~Seth >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
On 2/11/15 9:20, Brett A Mansfield wrote: It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to a paid service without getting anything from it? The customer pays you for internet access, right? That's what you "get" from it. ~Seth
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Don’t worry, the dingo has promised to forbear from eating babies.
Or remember Bruce the shark in Finding Nemo? “Fish are friends, not food.”
From: Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 1:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Without getting too political, my objection to the forbearance process is that
there are duly enacted statutes and regulations that the FCC can, of it's
commissioners volition, choose not to enforce it. Section 10 gives the FCC
the power to "forbear from enforcing statutes and regulations that are no
longer current and necessary in light of changes in the industry".
Changing the law or regulations is a difficult and time consuming process,
often with considerable public input. Choosing to forbear or remove
forbearance is not a long and difficult process, which is my objection. If
Broadband is under Title II and the commissioners decide that rate regulation
of ISP's is 'current and necessary' then rate regulation comes back. The
decision gets made by 3 of the 5 commissioners and other than taking it to the
courts there isn't anything that can be done about it.
The mockery comment was more aimed at the Obamacare 'executive authority' where
the administration just ignores whatever parts of the actual law hat are
politically inconvenient. Congress did undoubtedly give the FCC forbearance
authority, so it's legal, but it's a safe bet that Congress never intended the
authority to include waiving 90% of of an entire section.
Mark
On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
whether you agree or not, it is not a mockery of the law..it is a lawful
process in our current rule of government.
It is easy to want to state you want "laissez faire" but image what would
happen if government didn't offer us some protection.
FCC ---licensed links for example. Once license process is done and you
have a legitimate license, you have recourse.. Try getting help on unlicensed
links
not a political stance...just practical
Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
The forbearance process, changeable at any time for any politically
expedient reason, scares me.It's 'executive authority' all over again and
makes a mockery of the rule of law and the democratic process.
Mark
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 5:57 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> But the only permanent part of this I see is being reclassified as a
utility. Everything else including forbearing from most of the bad stuff is
totally up to change, with very little upside and tons of downside. It would
be different if this was proposed legislation, it wouldn't be changeable at the
whim of future FCC commissioners.
>
>
> -Original Message----- From: David
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:52 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
>
> I hope so.. Because I can be Extreme :)
>
>> On 02/05/2015 02:46 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>> Steve's talk about this yesterday lead me to believe this is something
we can live with.
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield
>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:28 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
>>
>> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the
FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me
to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to
pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require
that I raise prices to cover my increased costs.
>>
>> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my
network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls.
>>
>> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond
what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If
it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest
every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed
or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture,
and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it
would certainly help.
>>
>> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any
ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing
here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to
begin of what we could really do to stop this.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>
>
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Without getting too political, my objection to the forbearance process is that there are duly enacted statutes and regulations that the FCC can, of it's commissioners volition, choose not to enforce it. Section 10 gives the FCC the power to "forbear from enforcing statutes and regulations that are no longer current and necessary in light of changes in the industry". Changing the law or regulations is a difficult and time consuming process, often with considerable public input. Choosing to forbear or remove forbearance is not a long and difficult process, which is my objection. If Broadband is under Title II and the commissioners decide that rate regulation of ISP's is 'current and necessary' then rate regulation comes back. The decision gets made by 3 of the 5 commissioners and other than taking it to the courts there isn't anything that can be done about it. The mockery comment was more aimed at the Obamacare 'executive authority' where the administration just ignores whatever parts of the actual law hat are politically inconvenient. Congress did undoubtedly give the FCC forbearance authority, so it's legal, but it's a safe bet that Congress never intended the authority to include waiving 90% of of an entire section. Mark > On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: > > whether you agree or not, it is not a mockery of the law..it is a lawful > process in our current rule of government. > It is easy to want to state you want "laissez faire" but image what would > happen if government didn't offer us some protection. > FCC ---licensed links for example. Once license process is done and you > have a legitimate license, you have recourse.. Try getting help on > unlicensed links > not a political stance...just practical > > Jaime Solorza > Wireless Systems Architect > 915-861-1390 > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Mark Radabaugh <mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote: > The forbearance process, changeable at any time for any politically expedient > reason, scares me.It's 'executive authority' all over again and makes a > mockery of the rule of law and the democratic process. > > Mark > > > > On Feb 5, 2015, at 5:57 PM, Ken Hohhof > <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote: > > > > But the only permanent part of this I see is being reclassified as a > > utility. Everything else including forbearing from most of the bad stuff > > is totally up to change, with very little upside and tons of downside. It > > would be different if this was proposed legislation, it wouldn't be > > changeable at the whim of future FCC commissioners. > > > > > > -Original Message- From: David > > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:52 PM > > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > > > I hope so.. Because I can be Extreme :) > > > >> On 02/05/2015 02:46 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: > >> Steve's talk about this yesterday lead me to believe this is something we > >> can live with. > >> > >> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:28 AM > >> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> > >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > >> > >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC > >> will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me > >> to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll > >> need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which > >> will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. > >> > >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my > >> network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. > >> > >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what > >> they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If > >> it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in > >> protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law > >> was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would > >> get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people > >> complaining to them about it would certainly help. > >> > >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any > >> ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just > >> spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want > >> the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Brett A Mansfield > > > > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
This has probably already been said here, bu just in case not: The pubs are telling this: http://www.cnet.com/news/republican-fcc-commissioners-net-neutrality-plan-misleads-the-american-people/?tag=nl.e703&s_cid=e703&ttag=e703&ftag=CAD090e536 On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > Block legal content? No. > > > -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will > make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service > completely? For example, the new sling TV? > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > > On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List wrote: >> >> I've sent letters to my senator and representative. >> >> We'll see. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" >> >> >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the >> FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force >> me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll >> need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which >> will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. >> >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my >> network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. >> >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond >> what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. >> If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in >> protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law >> was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would >> get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining >> to them about it would certainly help. >> >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any >> ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing >> here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion >> to begin of what we could really do to stop this. >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield >> > > > -- Philip J. Rankin Wireless Telecommunications Services PO Box 24 Pittsburg, KS 66762
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
And unfortunately, neutrality swings both ways. For example, T-Mobile doesn’t count music streaming against your data cap, something most customers probably like. But since their list doesn’t include EVERY music streaming service, they could be in trouble. Or if Netflix wanted to pay them to not count Netflix streaming against the data cap, so-called sponsored data, that probably won’t pass muster either. I see it as no different than stores that pay for your parking, or Amazon Prime having free shipping. But innovations like that are a threat to the Open Internet. From: Glen Waldrop Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 12:18 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" Right, so punish Comcast, not WISPs. One jackass breaks the law, so lets punish everyone. Just like public school all over again. Apparently we never outgrow this stupidity. From: David Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:58 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" Agreed... Thanks Comcast :) On 02/11/2015 11:21 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: That's what got us into the mess we're now in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Brett A Mansfield" mailto:br...@silverlakeinternet.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:20:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to a paid service without getting anything from it? It’s like telling a retailer that they can sell their product in the mall without having to pay any rent. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield Silver Lake Internet > On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com wrote: > > Block legal content? No. > > > -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service completely? For example, the new sling TV? > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: >> >> I've sent letters to my senator and representative. >> >> We'll see. >> >> >> >> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" >> >> >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. >> >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. >> >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. >> >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
I bet there are more WISPs guilty of restricting content than Fortune 500 companies that have done so. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Glen Waldrop" To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 12:18:47 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" Right, so punish Comcast, not WISPs. One jackass breaks the law, so lets punish everyone. Just like public school all over again. Apparently we never outgrow this stupidity. From: David Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:58 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" Agreed... Thanks Comcast :) On 02/11/2015 11:21 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: That's what got us into the mess we're now in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Brett A Mansfield" mailto:br...@silverlakeinternet.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:20:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to a paid service without getting anything from it? It’s like telling a retailer that they can sell their product in the mall without having to pay any rent. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield Silver Lake Internet > On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com wrote: > > Block legal content? No. > > > -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will > make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service > completely? For example, the new sling TV? > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: >> >> I've sent letters to my senator and representative. >> >> We'll see. >> >> >> >> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" >> >> >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC >> will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me >> to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need >> to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will >> require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. >> >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my >> network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. >> >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what >> they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it >> does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest >> every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was >> repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get >> the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to >> them about it would certainly help. >> >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? >> Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so >> please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin >> of what we could really do to stop this. >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Right, so punish Comcast, not WISPs. One jackass breaks the law, so lets punish everyone. Just like public school all over again. Apparently we never outgrow this stupidity. From: David Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:58 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" Agreed... Thanks Comcast :) On 02/11/2015 11:21 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: That's what got us into the mess we're now in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Brett A Mansfield" mailto:br...@silverlakeinternet.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:20:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to a paid service without getting anything from it? It’s like telling a retailer that they can sell their product in the mall without having to pay any rent. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield Silver Lake Internet > On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com wrote: > > Block legal content? No. > > > -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service completely? For example, the new sling TV? > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net wrote: >> >> I've sent letters to my senator and representative. >> >> We'll see. >> >> >> >> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" >> >> >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. >> >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. >> >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. >> >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Yep, there's nothing to stop you from limiting bandwidth any way you want, as long as everything is limited equally - trying to block or limit a specific service because it uses too much bandwidth, or just because don't happen to like it for that matter, is what will get you into trouble. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: > Net Neutrality means an ISP cannot favor one service over another. It does > not mean the ISP has to ensure enough bandwidth to access every service > available. If Hughes is forced to launch more satellites, then we might > have a problem. > > > > Make your TOS explicit without naming any specific type of service. > > > > *“Residential service provides burst speeds up to 50Mbps depending on > location and hardware. During periods of heavy download activity, the speed > will automatically regulate to 2.5Mbps x 1Mbps until the download is > complete. Examples of heavy download activity include computer software > upgrades, books, music, and video.”* > > > > Customer agrees to the TOS or finds another service. Problem solved. > > > > Jerry > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:22 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > > > That's what got us into the mess we're now in. > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > -- > > *From: *"Brett A Mansfield" > *To: *af@afmug.com > *Sent: *Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:20:07 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to > a paid service without getting anything from it? It’s like telling a > retailer that they can sell their product in the mall without having to pay > any rent. > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > Silver Lake Internet > > > > On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > > > Block legal content? No. > > > > > > -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM > > To: af@afmug.com > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > > > I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it > will make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a > service completely? For example, the new sling TV? > > > > Thank you, > > Brett A Mansfield > > > >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List wrote: > >> > >> I've sent letters to my senator and representative. > >> > >> We'll see. > >> > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM > >> To: af@afmug.com > >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > >> > >> > >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the > FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force > me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll > need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which > will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. > >> > >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my > network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. > >> > >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond > what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. > If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in > protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law > was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would > get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining > to them about it would certainly help. > >> > >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any > ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing > here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion > to begin of what we could really do to stop this. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Brett A Mansfield > > > > > > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Net Neutrality means an ISP cannot favor one service over another. It does not mean the ISP has to ensure enough bandwidth to access every service available. If Hughes is forced to launch more satellites, then we might have a problem. Make your TOS explicit without naming any specific type of service. “Residential service provides burst speeds up to 50Mbps depending on location and hardware. During periods of heavy download activity, the speed will automatically regulate to 2.5Mbps x 1Mbps until the download is complete. Examples of heavy download activity include computer software upgrades, books, music, and video.” Customer agrees to the TOS or finds another service. Problem solved. Jerry From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:22 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" That's what got us into the mess we're now in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com _ From: "Brett A Mansfield" mailto:br...@silverlakeinternet.com> > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:20:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to a paid service without getting anything from it? It’s like telling a retailer that they can sell their product in the mall without having to pay any rent. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield Silver Lake Internet > On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof <mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote: > > Block legal content? No. > > > -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will > make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service > completely? For example, the new sling TV? > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List > <mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net> > wrote: >> >> I've sent letters to my senator and representative. >> >> We'll see. >> >> >> >> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM >> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" >> >> >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC >> will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me >> to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need >> to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will >> require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. >> >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my >> network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. >> >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what >> they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it >> does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest >> every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was >> repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get >> the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to >> them about it would certainly help. >> >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? >> Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, >> so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to >> begin of what we could really do to stop this. >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Agreed... Thanks Comcast :) On 02/11/2015 11:21 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: That's what got us into the mess we're now in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *"Brett A Mansfield" *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:20:07 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to a paid service without getting anything from it? It’s like telling a retailer that they can sell their product in the mall without having to pay any rent. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield Silver Lake Internet > On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > Block legal content? No. > > > -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service completely? For example, the new sling TV? > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List wrote: >> >> I've sent letters to my senator and representative. >> >> We'll see. >> >> >> >> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" >> >> >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. >> >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. >> >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. >> >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
That's what got us into the mess we're now in. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Brett A Mansfield" To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:20:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to a paid service without getting anything from it? It’s like telling a retailer that they can sell their product in the mall without having to pay any rent. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield Silver Lake Internet > On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > Block legal content? No. > > > -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will > make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service > completely? For example, the new sling TV? > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List wrote: >> >> I've sent letters to my senator and representative. >> >> We'll see. >> >> >> >> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" >> >> >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC >> will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me >> to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need >> to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will >> require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. >> >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my >> network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. >> >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what >> they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it >> does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest >> every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was >> repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get >> the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to >> them about it would certainly help. >> >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? >> Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so >> please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin >> of what we could really do to stop this. >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
It may be legal, but why should I be required to provide someone access to a paid service without getting anything from it? It’s like telling a retailer that they can sell their product in the mall without having to pay any rent. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield Silver Lake Internet > On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > Block legal content? No. > > > -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will > make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service > completely? For example, the new sling TV? > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List wrote: >> >> I've sent letters to my senator and representative. >> >> We'll see. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" >> >> >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC >> will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me >> to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need >> to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will >> require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. >> >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my >> network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. >> >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what >> they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it >> does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest >> every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was >> repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get >> the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to >> them about it would certainly help. >> >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? >> Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, >> so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to >> begin of what we could really do to stop this. >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Block legal content? No. -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:52 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service completely? For example, the new sling TV? Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List wrote: I've sent letters to my senator and representative. We'll see. -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
whether you agree or not, it is not a mockery of the law..it is a lawful process in our current rule of government. It is easy to want to state you want "laissez faire" but image what would happen if government didn't offer us some protection. FCC ---licensed links for example. Once license process is done and you have a legitimate license, you have recourse.. Try getting help on unlicensed links not a political stance...just practical Jaime Solorza Wireless Systems Architect 915-861-1390 On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > The forbearance process, changeable at any time for any politically > expedient reason, scares me.It's 'executive authority' all over again > and makes a mockery of the rule of law and the democratic process. > > Mark > > > > On Feb 5, 2015, at 5:57 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > > > But the only permanent part of this I see is being reclassified as a > utility. Everything else including forbearing from most of the bad stuff > is totally up to change, with very little upside and tons of downside. It > would be different if this was proposed legislation, it wouldn't be > changeable at the whim of future FCC commissioners. > > > > > > -Original Message- From: David > > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:52 PM > > To: af@afmug.com > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > > > I hope so.. Because I can be Extreme :) > > > >> On 02/05/2015 02:46 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: > >> Steve's talk about this yesterday lead me to believe this is something > we can live with. > >> > >> -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:28 AM > >> To: af@afmug.com > >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > >> > >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the > FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force > me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll > need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which > will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. > >> > >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my > network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. > >> > >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond > what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. > If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in > protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law > was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would > get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining > to them about it would certainly help. > >> > >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any > ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing > here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion > to begin of what we could really do to stop this. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Brett A Mansfield > > > > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
I was kind of wondering another thing about this proposal. I know it will make it so we cannot have "fast and slow lanes", but can we block a service completely? For example, the new sling TV? Thank you, Brett A Mansfield > On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:46 AM, GW List wrote: > > I've sent letters to my senator and representative. > > We'll see. > > > > -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > > I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC > will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to > have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to > pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will > require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. > > It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, > so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. > > I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what > they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it > does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest > every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was > repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the > picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them > about it would certainly help. > > I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? > Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so > please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of > what we could really do to stop this. > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
I've sent letters to my senator and representative. We'll see. -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:28 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
">> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this." The problem is even as many folks on wireless as there are, we'd be a drop in the bucket. We'd make our customers mad. What we need is something of equal value (our livelyhood = ?) to folks in office to take away from them. - Original Message - From: "Mark Radabaugh" To: Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" The forbearance process, changeable at any time for any politically expedient reason, scares me.It's 'executive authority' all over again and makes a mockery of the rule of law and the democratic process. Mark On Feb 5, 2015, at 5:57 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: But the only permanent part of this I see is being reclassified as a utility. Everything else including forbearing from most of the bad stuff is totally up to change, with very little upside and tons of downside. It would be different if this was proposed legislation, it wouldn't be changeable at the whim of future FCC commissioners. -Original Message----- From: David Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" I hope so.. Because I can be Extreme :) On 02/05/2015 02:46 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: Steve's talk about this yesterday lead me to believe this is something we can live with. -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
The forbearance process, changeable at any time for any politically expedient reason, scares me.It's 'executive authority' all over again and makes a mockery of the rule of law and the democratic process. Mark > On Feb 5, 2015, at 5:57 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > But the only permanent part of this I see is being reclassified as a utility. > Everything else including forbearing from most of the bad stuff is totally > up to change, with very little upside and tons of downside. It would be > different if this was proposed legislation, it wouldn't be changeable at the > whim of future FCC commissioners. > > > -Original Message- From: David > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:52 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" > > I hope so.. Because I can be Extreme :) > >> On 02/05/2015 02:46 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: >> Steve's talk about this yesterday lead me to believe this is something we >> can live with. >> >> -Original Message----- From: Brett A Mansfield >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:28 AM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" >> >> I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC >> will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me >> to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need >> to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will >> require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. >> >> It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my >> network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. >> >> I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what >> they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it >> does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest >> every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was >> repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get >> the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to >> them about it would certainly help. >> >> I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? >> Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, >> so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to >> begin of what we could really do to stop this. >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield > >
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
But the only permanent part of this I see is being reclassified as a utility. Everything else including forbearing from most of the bad stuff is totally up to change, with very little upside and tons of downside. It would be different if this was proposed legislation, it wouldn't be changeable at the whim of future FCC commissioners. -Original Message- From: David Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:52 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" I hope so.. Because I can be Extreme :) On 02/05/2015 02:46 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: Steve's talk about this yesterday lead me to believe this is something we can live with. -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
I hope so.. Because I can be Extreme :) On 02/05/2015 02:46 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: Steve's talk about this yesterday lead me to believe this is something we can live with. -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
Steve's talk about this yesterday lead me to believe this is something we can live with. -Original Message- From: Brett A Mansfield Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
FUSF isn't part of it either from what I read. -- Christopher Tyler MTCRE/MTCNA/MTCTCE/MTCWE Total Highspeed Internet Services 417.851.1107 - Original Message - From: "Jerry Richardson" To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2015 12:45:29 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" My understanding is that there are loopholes for small businesses with revenue under several million. Jerry -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield
Re: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
My understanding is that there are loopholes for small businesses with revenue under several million. Jerry -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] "Net neutrality" I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield
[AFMUG] "Net neutrality"
I just ready yet another article on the so called "net neutrality" the FCC will be voting on Feb 26th. This government overreach is going to force me to have to register to collect taxes on all of my customers, which I'll need to pay someone to do for me to make sure I stay in compliance, which will require that I raise prices to cover my increased costs. It will also prevent me from being able to run any kind of QoS on my network, so goodbye to any decent VoIP calls. I for one would like to keep the government out of my business beyond what they already are. The article I read stated that it will likely pass. If it does, I think something very "extreme" may need to be done. If in protest every ISP in the USA shut down their networks either until the law was repealed or for just a day or two strike I think the government would get the picture, and if they didn't then the millions of people complaining to them about it would certainly help. I know that is very extreme, but just a thought. Anyone else have any ideas? Perhaps if we just threaten to do so may help? I'm just spitballing here, so please don't think I'm being to crazy. I just want the discussion to begin of what we could really do to stop this. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield
Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page
I see some serious taxation in the near term Apparently, in the state of the state on wednesday our new governor in illinois is going to discuss some new service taxes, one of which is on hair cuts (im in the hole still 9k out of the 16k it cost to send the old lady to school to be a cosmetologist or whetever theyre called) which I see as a backdoor into getting the service tax in place here in illinois. Going to get expensive to be a WISP in this state very shortly between our inability to manage money and our feds inability to manage money. But hey, at least in the end, high speed porn for all right? On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: > Still the same rate, even after title II* > > *additional fees apply to pay for your favorite politicians steak > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Kurt Fankhauser > wrote: > >> If we get forced into this public utility BS i see raising prices to the >> customer as essential. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> Kurt Fankhauser >> Wavelinc Communications >> P.O. Box 126 >> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >> http://www.wavelinc.com >> tel. 419-562-6405 >> fax. 419-617-0110 >> >> On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> >> I assume you’re joking. >> >> But I’ll bet 24.9M / 2.9M with no USF taxes would be an attractive offer >> to customers! >> >> >> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:09 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page >> >> thats the way i am interpretting it, does that mean we dont need to >> file form 477 anymore too? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> Kurt Fankhauser >> Wavelinc Communications >> P.O. Box 126 >> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >> http://www.wavelinc.com >> tel. 419-562-6405 >> fax. 419-617-0110 >> >> On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield < >> br...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote: >> >> This article said that it will be regulating broadband internet >> providers more heavily. When the FCC changes the definition of broadband to >> 25Mb and higher will that mean that most WISPs will be exempt? >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield >> >> On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc < >> t...@franklinisp.net> wrote: >> >> >> http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/technology/net-neutrality-fcc/index.html >> >> >> >> >> >> *Tyson Burris, President* >> *Internet Communications Inc.* >> *739 Commerce Dr.* >> *Franklin, IN 46131* >> >> *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #* >> *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #* >> *Online: **www.surfici.net* >> >> >> >> >> >> *What can ICI do for you?* >> >> >> *Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - >> IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.* >> >> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the* >> *addressee shown. It contains information that is* >> *confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,* >> *dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by* >> *unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly* >> *prohibited.* >> >> >> >> > -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page
Still the same rate, even after title II* *additional fees apply to pay for your favorite politicians steak Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > If we get forced into this public utility BS i see raising prices to the > customer as essential. > > Sent from my iPhone > > Kurt Fankhauser > Wavelinc Communications > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > http://www.wavelinc.com > tel. 419-562-6405 > fax. 419-617-0110 > > On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > I assume you’re joking. > > But I’ll bet 24.9M / 2.9M with no USF taxes would be an attractive offer > to customers! > > > *From:* Kurt Fankhauser > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:09 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page > > thats the way i am interpretting it, does that mean we dont need to file > form 477 anymore too? > > Sent from my iPhone > > Kurt Fankhauser > Wavelinc Communications > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > http://www.wavelinc.com > tel. 419-562-6405 > fax. 419-617-0110 > > On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield < > br...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote: > > This article said that it will be regulating broadband internet > providers more heavily. When the FCC changes the definition of broadband to > 25Mb and higher will that mean that most WISPs will be exempt? > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > > On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc < > t...@franklinisp.net> wrote: > > http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/technology/net-neutrality-fcc/index.html > > > > > > *Tyson Burris, President* > *Internet Communications Inc.* > *739 Commerce Dr.* > *Franklin, IN 46131* > > *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #* > *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #* > *Online: **www.surfici.net* > > > > > > *What can ICI do for you?* > > > *Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP > Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.* > > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the* > *addressee shown. It contains information that is* > *confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,* > *dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by* > *unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly* > *prohibited.* > > > >
Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page
LOL I doubt it will go that way, but yeah it would be interesting if the silver lining was that not selling broadband speed meant no regulation. I assume you’re joking. But I’ll bet 24.9M / 2.9M with no USF taxes would be an attractive offer to customers! *From:* Kurt Fankhauser <mailto:li...@wavelinc.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:09 AM *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page thats the way i am interpretting it, does that mean we dont need to file form 477 anymore too? Sent from my iPhone Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield mailto:br...@silverlakeinternet.com>> wrote: This article said that it will be regulating broadband internet providers more heavily. When the FCC changes the definition of broadband to 25Mb and higher will that mean that most WISPs will be exempt? Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc mailto:t...@franklinisp.net>> wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/technology/net-neutrality-fcc/index.html *Tyson Burris, President** **Internet Communications Inc.** **739 Commerce Dr.** **Franklin, IN 46131** *** *317-738-0320 Daytime #* *317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #* *Online: **www.surfici.net* *What can ICI do for you?* *Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.* ** *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the* *addressee shown. It contains information that is* *confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,* *dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by* *unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly* *prohibited.*
Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page
If we get forced into this public utility BS i see raising prices to the customer as essential. Sent from my iPhone Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 > On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > I assume you’re joking. > > But I’ll bet 24.9M / 2.9M with no USF taxes would be an attractive offer to > customers! > > > From: Kurt Fankhauser > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:09 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page > > thats the way i am interpretting it, does that mean we dont need to file form > 477 anymore too? > > Sent from my iPhone > > Kurt Fankhauser > Wavelinc Communications > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > http://www.wavelinc.com > tel. 419-562-6405 > fax. 419-617-0110 > >> On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield >> wrote: >> >> This article said that it will be regulating broadband internet providers >> more heavily. When the FCC changes the definition of broadband to 25Mb and >> higher will that mean that most WISPs will be exempt? >> >> Thank you, >> Brett A Mansfield >> >>> On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc >>> wrote: >>> >>> http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/technology/net-neutrality-fcc/index.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Tyson Burris, President >>> Internet Communications Inc. >>> 739 Commerce Dr. >>> Franklin, IN 46131 >>> >>> 317-738-0320 Daytime # >>> 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # >>> Online: www.surfici.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What can ICI do for you? >>> >>> >>> Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP >>> Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. >>> >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the >>> addressee shown. It contains information that is >>> confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, >>> dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by >>> unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly >>> prohibited.
Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page
I assume you’re joking. But I’ll bet 24.9M / 2.9M with no USF taxes would be an attractive offer to customers! From: Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:09 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page thats the way i am interpretting it, does that mean we dont need to file form 477 anymore too? Sent from my iPhone Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield wrote: This article said that it will be regulating broadband internet providers more heavily. When the FCC changes the definition of broadband to 25Mb and higher will that mean that most WISPs will be exempt? Thank you, Brett A Mansfield On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/technology/net-neutrality-fcc/index.html Tyson Burris, President Internet Communications Inc. 739 Commerce Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 317-738-0320 Daytime # 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # Online: www.surfici.net What can ICI do for you? Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly prohibited.
Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page
thats the way i am interpretting it, does that mean we dont need to file form 477 anymore too? Sent from my iPhone Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 > On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Brett A Mansfield > wrote: > > This article said that it will be regulating broadband internet providers > more heavily. When the FCC changes the definition of broadband to 25Mb and > higher will that mean that most WISPs will be exempt? > > Thank you, > Brett A Mansfield > >> On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc >> wrote: >> >> http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/technology/net-neutrality-fcc/index.html >> >> >> Tyson Burris, President >> Internet Communications Inc. >> 739 Commerce Dr. >> Franklin, IN 46131 >> >> 317-738-0320 Daytime # >> 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # >> Online: www.surfici.net >> >> >> What can ICI do for you? >> >> Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP >> Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the >> addressee shown. It contains information that is >> confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, >> dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by >> unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly >> prohibited. >> >>
Re: [AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page
This article said that it will be regulating broadband internet providers more heavily. When the FCC changes the definition of broadband to 25Mb and higher will that mean that most WISPs will be exempt? Thank you, Brett A Mansfield > On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc > wrote: > > http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/technology/net-neutrality-fcc/index.html > > > Tyson Burris, President > Internet Communications Inc. > 739 Commerce Dr. > Franklin, IN 46131 > > 317-738-0320 Daytime # > 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # > Online: www.surfici.net > > > What can ICI do for you? > > Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP > Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the > addressee shown. It contains information that is > confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, > dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by > unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly > prohibited. > >
[AFMUG] Net Neutrality - CNN front page
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/technology/net-neutrality-fcc/index.html Tyson Burris, President Internet Communications Inc. 739 Commerce Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 317-738-0320 Daytime # 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # Online: www.surfici.net What can ICI do for you? Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly prohibited.
