On 12/16/17 9:39 AM, Vance Shipley wrote:
>
> Sure they did. What would you do if a "customer" (from your perspective)
> said to you that they were special and you shouldn't charge them anything?
>
> A) you would ignore them, or B) you would give them a price. Either way
> it's your choice, at
Life isn't fair and you are not entitled to your oversubscription ratios.
I'm fine with lower cost plans that have higher contention during peak hours, as long as it's clearly and fairly disclosed.
I'm not fine with plans being advertised as XX Mbps, flatrate and no data caps and then no
I counter your claims of fallacy with my own claim of bad analogy. The restaurant business is nothing like the ISP business, where critical inputs have lower and lower unit costs each year, the seller sets the rate of service and consumption has well know diurnal usage patterns.
However, what
I agree. Prioritizing VoIP is to provide a better quality phone call for
the user.
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 9:17 AM Marco Coelho wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with prioritizing one type of service over another
> (VOIP vs FTP). It leads to a better quality of service for the end user.
> Where t
On December 16, 2017, "Vance Shipley" wrote:
> ... however if you agree that you'll save money on your upstream and want to
> install a shared cost, meet in the middle, peering with
> Netflix (Google, Amazon, Acme startup, ...) you've created a "fast lane" and
> are now the enemy of ignorant ne
Right.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Vance Shipley"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 12:21:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points
listenedenjoyed the calls from listeners too. good job!
sounds like you may have got some business out of it too!
- Original Message -
From: t...@cherrycapitalconnection.com
To: 'WISPA General List'
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network
... however if you agree that you'll save money on your upstream and want
to install a shared cost, meet in the middle, peering with Netflix (Google,
Amazon, Acme startup, ...) you've created a "fast lane" and are now the
enemy of ignorant net neutrality advocates.
On Dec 16, 2017 23:39, "Mike Ha
Correct.
Netflix should not be entitled to free connections, but the ISP should see the
advantage in doing so and accept.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Vance Shipley"
To: "WISPA G
"You" are an ISP of any size but think of the current context of a WISP.
"They" are some party who wants access to your network subscribers. To
begin with, when you get that call, it looks identical to a potential
customer wanting to order a dedicated access solution which you are happy
to sell the
Who is who here? We need to keep the conversation clear. I know I started with
some ambiguity.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Vance Shipley"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Saturday
I was asked to speak on the issue of Net Neutrality.
This is the recording
http://wtcmradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Tim-Maylone-Cherry-Capital-Communications-12-01-17.mp3
Staying to point was one of my goals I thought I achieved.
It was my first time in studio, Was kind of fun
Fro
On Dec 16, 2017 22:53, "Mike Hammett" wrote:
They wanted paid peering and they got paid peering. NN didn't have any
effect on that. The FCC specifically said they didn't understand how all
that stuff works and didn't regulate
Sure they did. What would you do if a "customer" (from your perspecti
There is a lot of misunderstanding out there.
You had to treat classes of traffic the same. All VoIP the same. All streaming
video the same. All games the same, etc.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message
Legally there is.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Dec 16, 2017 12:17 PM, "Marco Coelho" wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with prioritizing one type of service over another
> (VOIP vs FTP). It leads to a better quality of service
"Fast Lanes" were an idea posed by the anti-ISP crowd and then when the big
ISPs started to catch on to that, the anti-ISP latched onto that as the next
evil.
They wanted paid peering and they got paid peering. NN didn't have any effect
on that. The FCC specifically said they didn't understand
There is nothing wrong with prioritizing one type of service over another
(VOIP vs FTP). It leads to a better quality of service for the end user.
Where this was going sideways earlier was when the big ISP companies were
going to charge Netflix and Hulu directly if they wanted priority on their
ba
17 matches
Mail list logo