Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Travis Johnson]

Personally I have a septic tank. Costs $100 to have emptied every 4-5 years.

However, within city limits, there is a seperate "sewer" charge on the 
utility bill. But, it's not included in the water bill. ;)


Travis
Microserv

Jeromie Reeves wrote:


Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

The water at my home is not billed on usage, but a flat rate each 
month. It's a community system with about 300 homes. Even water 
inside city limits of a town with 50,000 population is not billed on 
usage, but a flat rate.


Also, another difference between electricity, water, etc. vs. 
Internet is that water and electricity only flows into the 
property with Internet traffic, it goes both ways. ;)



How do you get rid of your water? I use a public sewer paid for in the 
same bill as my water.


Jeromie



Travis
Microserv

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Here here!  That's why we've ALWAYS been honest with our customers.  
We bill per bit not per mbps.  Go as fast as your situation will 
allow but don't get stupid with the connection.


It's worked out so nicely that we're running 300ish broadband 
customers, 50 of them on 100 meg fiber links (80/20 res/bus or so).  
Our billing averages under 1.5 megs of average usage for ALL 
customers throughout the month.  (I pay bw based on usage.)


laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own 
wisp!

64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: "Tony Weasler" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



A modern marketing mistake created this mess.  A company started to
sell a product that it was incapable of delivering: unlimited network
access.  Other companies followed suit and assumed that they would
never be compelled to make good on their promise.  Now, instead of
admitting that they were wrong, most providers are trying to redefine
the word 'unlimited' through legal documents that attempt to restrict
their customers' actions.

A far better approach would be to determine what their network can
handle and charge appropriately for the usage of their customers.  If
their network can't provide the customer-demanded services at a fair
price, then they need to update their network, reduce their costs, or
leave the market.  It really can be that simple.

Regulations in this type of system are only necessary to ensure that
providers are disclosing the information necessary for consumers to
choose amongst the competitors.  Micro-managing the various services
running on top of the network only causes the services to route around
the complexity of the regulations and adds unnecessary expense for the
consumers and a barrier to entry for future competitors.

Jeff Pulver wrote a very interesting blog entry on Friday about the
issue of bit-pipes vs. artificially-restricted communications pipes.
It seems that Congress might be more informed than the FCC on this
issue.  Time will tell:
http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003274.html

- Tony

On 11/7/2005 1:51 PM, Charles Wu created:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any 
different?


-Charles




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Tom DeReggi]

Personally, I'm not sure whats wrong with selling broadband at a flat rate, 
and then have an add on option for people who want to pay per bit, to 
actually get the throughput they need above the misrepresented commodity 
marketing speeds.  Someone agrees to be an average, and takes the slow down 
when they aren't or they agree to pay.  Thats why we bandwdith manage by 
priority. Give em the speed if its available, slow everyone down equally.


Only problem is people then think you are purposely slowing them down to 
force em to a pay per bit, after the fact.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



Hi,

The water at my home is not billed on usage, but a flat rate each month. 
It's a community system with about 300 homes. Even water inside city 
limits of a town with 50,000 population is not billed on usage, but a flat 
rate.


Also, another difference between electricity, water, etc. vs. Internet is 
that water and electricity only flows into the property with Internet 
traffic, it goes both ways. ;)


Travis
Microserv

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Here here!  That's why we've ALWAYS been honest with our customers.  We 
bill per bit not per mbps.  Go as fast as your situation will allow but 
don't get stupid with the connection.


It's worked out so nicely that we're running 300ish broadband customers, 
50 of them on 100 meg fiber links (80/20 res/bus or so).  Our billing 
averages under 1.5 megs of average usage for ALL customers throughout the 
month.  (I pay bw based on usage.)


laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: "Tony Weasler" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



A modern marketing mistake created this mess.  A company started to
sell a product that it was incapable of delivering: unlimited network
access.  Other companies followed suit and assumed that they would
never be compelled to make good on their promise.  Now, instead of
admitting that they were wrong, most providers are trying to redefine
the word 'unlimited' through legal documents that attempt to restrict
their customers' actions.

A far better approach would be to determine what their network can
handle and charge appropriately for the usage of their customers.  If
their network can't provide the customer-demanded services at a fair
price, then they need to update their network, reduce their costs, or
leave the market.  It really can be that simple.

Regulations in this type of system are only necessary to ensure that
providers are disclosing the information necessary for consumers to
choose amongst the competitors.  Micro-managing the various services
running on top of the network only causes the services to route around
the complexity of the regulations and adds unnecessary expense for the
consumers and a barrier to entry for future competitors.

Jeff Pulver wrote a very interesting blog entry on Friday about the
issue of bit-pipes vs. artificially-restricted communications pipes.
It seems that Congress might be more informed than the FCC on this
issue.  Time will tell:
http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003274.html

- Tony

On 11/7/2005 1:51 PM, Charles Wu created:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any 
different?


-Charles


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/166 - Release Date: 11/10/2005




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Jeromie Reeves]

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

The water at my home is not billed on usage, but a flat rate each 
month. It's a community system with about 300 homes. Even water inside 
city limits of a town with 50,000 population is not billed on usage, 
but a flat rate.


Also, another difference between electricity, water, etc. vs. Internet 
is that water and electricity only flows into the property with 
Internet traffic, it goes both ways. ;)


How do you get rid of your water? I use a public sewer paid for in the 
same bill as my water.


Jeromie



Travis
Microserv

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Here here!  That's why we've ALWAYS been honest with our customers.  
We bill per bit not per mbps.  Go as fast as your situation will 
allow but don't get stupid with the connection.


It's worked out so nicely that we're running 300ish broadband 
customers, 50 of them on 100 meg fiber links (80/20 res/bus or so).  
Our billing averages under 1.5 megs of average usage for ALL 
customers throughout the month.  (I pay bw based on usage.)


laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: "Tony Weasler" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



A modern marketing mistake created this mess.  A company started to
sell a product that it was incapable of delivering: unlimited network
access.  Other companies followed suit and assumed that they would
never be compelled to make good on their promise.  Now, instead of
admitting that they were wrong, most providers are trying to redefine
the word 'unlimited' through legal documents that attempt to restrict
their customers' actions.

A far better approach would be to determine what their network can
handle and charge appropriately for the usage of their customers.  If
their network can't provide the customer-demanded services at a fair
price, then they need to update their network, reduce their costs, or
leave the market.  It really can be that simple.

Regulations in this type of system are only necessary to ensure that
providers are disclosing the information necessary for consumers to
choose amongst the competitors.  Micro-managing the various services
running on top of the network only causes the services to route around
the complexity of the regulations and adds unnecessary expense for the
consumers and a barrier to entry for future competitors.

Jeff Pulver wrote a very interesting blog entry on Friday about the
issue of bit-pipes vs. artificially-restricted communications pipes.
It seems that Congress might be more informed than the FCC on this
issue.  Time will tell:
http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003274.html

- Tony

On 11/7/2005 1:51 PM, Charles Wu created:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any 
different?


-Charles



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Scott Reed]

Did you know electricity can flow both ways.  At least in many areas of the country the local power supplier is required to buy your excess power.  Many make it difficult, but they will buy it.

Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net

-- Original Message 
---

From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


To: WISPA General List  


Sent: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:07:07 -0700 


Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge 



> Hi, 
> 
> 

The water at my home is not billed on usage, but a flat rate each month.  

> 

It's a community system with about 300 homes. Even water inside city  
> 

limits of a town with 50,000 population is not billed on usage, but a  
> 

flat rate. 
> 
> 

Also, another difference between electricity, water, etc. vs. Internet  
> 

is that water and electricity only flows into the property with  
> 

Internet traffic, it goes both ways. ;) 
> 
> 

Travis 
> 

Microserv 
> 
> 

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: 
> 
> 

> Here here!  That's why we've ALWAYS been honest with our customers.  
 
> 

> We bill per bit not per mbps.  Go as fast as your situation will allow 
 
> 

> but don't get stupid with the connection. 
> 

> 
> 

> It's worked out so nicely that we're running 300ish broadband  
> 

> customers, 50 of them on 100 meg fiber links (80/20 res/bus or so).   

> 

> Our billing averages under 1.5 megs of average usage for ALL customers  

> 

> throughout the month.  (I pay bw based on usage.) 
> 

> 
> 

> laters, 
> 

> Marlon 
> 

> (509) 982-2181                  
                 Equipment sales 

> 

> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                
    Consulting services 
> 

> 42846865 (icq)                  
                  And I run my own 
wisp! 
> 

> 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) 
> 

> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless 
> 

> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam 
> 

> 
> 

> 
> 

> 
> 

> - Original Message ----- From: "Tony Weasler"  
> 

> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> 

> To: "WISPA General List"  
> 

> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:05 PM 
> 

> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge 

> 

> 
> 

> 
> 

>> A modern marketing mistake created this mess.  A company started 
to 
> 

>> sell a product that it was incapable of delivering: unlimited network 

> 

>> access.  Other companies followed suit and assumed that they would 

> 

>> never be compelled to make good on their promise.  Now, instead of 

> 

>> admitting that they were wrong, most providers are trying to redefine 

> 

>> the word 'unlimited' through legal documents that attempt to restrict 

> 

>> their customers' actions. 
> 

>> 
> 

>> A far better approach would be to determine what their network can 

> 

>> handle and charge appropriately for the usage of their customers.  
If 
> 

>> their network can't provide the customer-demanded services at a fair 

> 

>> price, then they need to update their network, reduce their costs, or 

> 

>> leave the market.  It really can be that simple. 
> 

>> 
> 

>> Regulations in this type of system are only necessary to ensure that 

> 

>> providers are disclosing the information necessary for consumers to 

> 

>> choose amongst the competitors.  Micro-managing the various 
services 
> 

>> running on top of the network only causes the services to route around 

> 

>> the complexity of the regulations and adds unnecessary expense for the 

> 

>> consumers and a barrier to entry for future competitors. 
> 

>> 
> 

>> Jeff Pulver wrote a very interesting blog entry on Friday about the 

> 

>> issue of bit-pipes vs. artificially-restricted communications pipes. 

> 

>> It seems that Congress might be more informed than the FCC on this 

> 

>> issue.  Time will tell: 
> 

>> http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003274.html 
> 

>> 
> 

>> - Tony 
> 

>> 
> 

>> On 11/7/2005 1:51 PM, Charles Wu created: 
> 

>> 
> 

>>> Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis 
> 

>>> 
> 

>>> Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any  

> 

>>> different? 
> 

>>> 
> 

>>> -Charles 
> 

>> 
> 

>> --  
> 

>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
> 

>> 
> 

>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
> 

>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
> 

>> 
> 

>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
> 

>> 
> 

> 
> 

--  
> 

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
> 
> 

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
> 

http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
> 

> 

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
--- 
End of Original Message 
---






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Travis Johnson]

Hi,

The water at my home is not billed on usage, but a flat rate each month. 
It's a community system with about 300 homes. Even water inside city 
limits of a town with 50,000 population is not billed on usage, but a 
flat rate.


Also, another difference between electricity, water, etc. vs. Internet 
is that water and electricity only flows into the property with 
Internet traffic, it goes both ways. ;)


Travis
Microserv

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Here here!  That's why we've ALWAYS been honest with our customers.  
We bill per bit not per mbps.  Go as fast as your situation will allow 
but don't get stupid with the connection.


It's worked out so nicely that we're running 300ish broadband 
customers, 50 of them on 100 meg fiber links (80/20 res/bus or so).  
Our billing averages under 1.5 megs of average usage for ALL customers 
throughout the month.  (I pay bw based on usage.)


laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: "Tony Weasler" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



A modern marketing mistake created this mess.  A company started to
sell a product that it was incapable of delivering: unlimited network
access.  Other companies followed suit and assumed that they would
never be compelled to make good on their promise.  Now, instead of
admitting that they were wrong, most providers are trying to redefine
the word 'unlimited' through legal documents that attempt to restrict
their customers' actions.

A far better approach would be to determine what their network can
handle and charge appropriately for the usage of their customers.  If
their network can't provide the customer-demanded services at a fair
price, then they need to update their network, reduce their costs, or
leave the market.  It really can be that simple.

Regulations in this type of system are only necessary to ensure that
providers are disclosing the information necessary for consumers to
choose amongst the competitors.  Micro-managing the various services
running on top of the network only causes the services to route around
the complexity of the regulations and adds unnecessary expense for the
consumers and a barrier to entry for future competitors.

Jeff Pulver wrote a very interesting blog entry on Friday about the
issue of bit-pipes vs. artificially-restricted communications pipes.
It seems that Congress might be more informed than the FCC on this
issue.  Time will tell:
http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003274.html

- Tony

On 11/7/2005 1:51 PM, Charles Wu created:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any 
different?


-Charles


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181]

Here here!  That's why we've ALWAYS been honest with our customers.  We bill 
per bit not per mbps.  Go as fast as your situation will allow but don't get 
stupid with the connection.


It's worked out so nicely that we're running 300ish broadband customers, 50 
of them on 100 meg fiber links (80/20 res/bus or so).  Our billing averages 
under 1.5 megs of average usage for ALL customers throughout the month.  (I 
pay bw based on usage.)


laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: "Tony Weasler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



A modern marketing mistake created this mess.  A company started to
sell a product that it was incapable of delivering: unlimited network
access.  Other companies followed suit and assumed that they would
never be compelled to make good on their promise.  Now, instead of
admitting that they were wrong, most providers are trying to redefine
the word 'unlimited' through legal documents that attempt to restrict
their customers' actions.

A far better approach would be to determine what their network can
handle and charge appropriately for the usage of their customers.  If
their network can't provide the customer-demanded services at a fair
price, then they need to update their network, reduce their costs, or
leave the market.  It really can be that simple.

Regulations in this type of system are only necessary to ensure that
providers are disclosing the information necessary for consumers to
choose amongst the competitors.  Micro-managing the various services
running on top of the network only causes the services to route around
the complexity of the regulations and adds unnecessary expense for the
consumers and a barrier to entry for future competitors.

Jeff Pulver wrote a very interesting blog entry on Friday about the
issue of bit-pipes vs. artificially-restricted communications pipes.
It seems that Congress might be more informed than the FCC on this
issue.  Time will tell:
http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003274.html

- Tony

On 11/7/2005 1:51 PM, Charles Wu created:

Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any different?

-Charles

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Tom DeReggi]

Good point George.

I did not consider emergency communication needs, in my thought.

But your point does strengthen, my opinion that broadband should not be 
undervalued.  If your ship was about to sink, and the coast guard needed to 
be immediately called, or INternet instant message sent, how much would you 
pay to be able to make that phone call, or communication, in a time of 
URGENT need, life or death situation? Is it appropriate to have 
communication systems that are NOT up to PAR, to handle these immediate 
emergency needs that consumers could have?  City providing a network to a 
million people for $10 a subscriber or for free, in an open access fassion, 
is not likely to deliver the reliabilty to meet the need of emergency 
response.  Thats one of the reasons Public safety organizations like POLICE 
have been allocated Licensed Spectrum worth billions given to them. 
Reliabilty and needs to be engineered, with realistic ideals.  For 
tehcnologies capabilty and support.The other question that applies is, 
how many options of communication are needed to fullfill that need?  There 
is a strong case for redundancy, such as MAC Dearman, has recently proven. 
and are those option necessary for the individual home? There is no doubt 
that broadband could save lives, as you just corrected me on the topic.  But 
what did the people do 20 years ago, when broadband did not exist? Or for 
that matter when phones did not exist?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



Tom DeReggi wrote:


TV, Phone, Internet on the other hand are luxeries, things that people 
rely on, but would survive if they did without.  I've never seen someone 
die from TV/Phone/Internet with drawal, although you never know it could 
happen.



Tom. You should rethink what you just said about you've never heard of 
anyone dying because of no phone or internet.


The phone absolutely has saved lives.

And people surely died that didn't get to one fast enough or could find 
one.


The internet on the other hand, I don't have to remind you that Mac and 
those hero wisp workers who bailed out people all across the gulf with 
voip and net sure proved that the net is more than a luxury.


As for tv, ok.


Sincerely

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/163 - Release Date: 11/8/2005




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181]

The real issue on this is natural vs. un-natural monopolies.

I can't find the article I read some years ago but here's the gist of it.

There's only so much room for things like water lines, gas lines, electric 
lines, telephone lines, streets, garbage cans etc.  Those PHYSICAL 
structures lend themselves nicely to monopolies.  We really don't need 15 
different electric lines running past our houses (though the case could be 
made as to why that may be a good thing).


Internet access, however, is a SERVICE not a thing.  There are multiple ways 
in which multiple providers can access customers (and vise verse) over 
EXISTING or unobtrusive distribution mechanisms.


To monopolize internet access would be like trying to monopolize movie 
theaters, hospitals, auto parts stores etc.


Here's a pretty good article I think (though I only took the time to scan 
it):

https://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

And for anyone that wants to dig deeper into it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=natural+vs.+unnatural+monopoly&hl=en&lr=

laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Charles Wu wrote:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any
different?


Charles,
I don't often find myself in total disagreement with your
statements.  I am on this point, however.  Well, maybe not "total",
but close.  The RBOCs and cableops are working hard to commoditize
the internet connection.  There are efforts on the part of many
municipalities to do the same.  Your city is doing this now.  I am
not sure there is anything we can do to "sway the tide" that seems
to be driven partly by the RBOCs and others, but I don't agree that
internet access fits the same "class" of service as the utilities
you mentioned.

For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed
for basic survival in the city.  Granted, these services have not
always been available, but it is expected by all Americans that if
they move somewhere, they can get those services.  Most people would
not survive without these services.  Tell me how internet access
fits that description.

Internet access is something that is NOT required for basic
necessities.  It IS something that most businesses can't do without.
With that in mind, why do you compare it to these other utilities?
I will do ok if the internet access business dries up.  I provide
other services that don't require me to even sell internet access.
These services work over any high speed connection.  One business
feeds the other.

NOW, to answer your original question: I think the question is
framed wrong.  I don't see us EVER getting to the point where we,
the network operator, will be paying for transports with
"origination fees" or "termination fees", as the telcos are doing
now.  Perhaps I missed the point of this conversation, as I have not
read all the posts, but I just don't believe it will ever get there.

--
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Butch Evans]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Ray & Jean wrote:

>electricity.. So a candle, shooting a rabbit, ugh!.. but they are 2
>deer about 25 feet from my kitchen window.  Guess I could shoot one
>of them.

:-)

>I maybe missing everyone's point.. but people will pay for what
>they get..  As long as you give them what they want.. without too
>much Hassel..

I can't speak for anyone else, but MY point is this:

Internet access is becoming more and more necessary.  People are
more and more "expecting" things on the internet to be free (think
of peer to peer apps and how people talk about stealing music and
movies).  They, also, because of the RBOCs, are beginning to think
that anyone who charges a REASONABLE fee for internet service is
"gouging".  This mentality is one that is not likely to be stopped.
I am simply doing what I can to impress on others in the same line
of work I am in, to think about what is happening and not to simply
accept this as fate (or whatever you want to call it).  I know that
if I were falling from a great height without a parachute, I would
at least flap my arms.  May not help, but it is all I can do.

My point in 2 words:  KEEP FLAPPING.

-- 
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Jeff Sullivan]

I would trade everything I have and ever would, for the life of Grizley
Adams. 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray & Jean
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 12:18 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband 
> Challenge
> 
> Well, as far what is necessary and what is not... Being a 
> woman.. I'm watching and taking care of 2 networks in 2 
> different cities 70 miles apart... using the internet and 
> phone.. Landline. Washing clothes, cleaning house, cooking a 
> meal. Watching TV. Had a T-1 go out in the furthest city.. 
> None of this is possible without electricity.. So a candle, 
> shooting a rabbit, ugh!.. but they are 2 deer about 25 feet 
> from my kitchen window. 
> Guess I could shoot one of them.
> 
> I maybe missing everyone's point.. but people will pay for 
> what they get.. 
> As long as you give them what they want.. without too much Hassel..
> My 2cents worth!
> Jean
> - Original Message -
> From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband 
> Challenge
> 
> 
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, George wrote:
> >
> >>Ok Butch. Lets take a test. Go to your office and your home and
> >>unplug all your landlines and turn off all the cell phones for 1
> >>week and lets see what happens.
> >
> > OUCH!  I am cold and hungry.  Turning pale.  My hair is falling out
> > (prolly not related. :-) ).
> >
> > Any rate, If I did this, I would not be happy and I couldn't work,
> > but I WOULD NOT die. Not sure what this "test" would prove...
> >
> > It is not really a fair "test" anyway.  This would be the equivalent
> > of removing the wrenches from a mechanic.  These tools are directly
> > part of what I do for a living.  They are not incidental to HELP me
> > do my job, they ARE my job (so to speak).
> >
> > Perhaps I am missing your point.  These things (telephone and
> > internet access) are both very important both from a cultural AND a
> > business standpoint.  I agree with you (and others) that both are a
> > very important part of American life.  Am I missing something else?
> > Do you suggest that everyone who is an American should (by some
> > unwritten rule) have a "right" to these things?  Even if they can't
> > afford it, should we come up with a way to subsidize it?  I am not
> > "baiting" you, I am simply not seeing the "point" you are trying to
> > make.
> >
> > -- 
> > Butch Evans
> > BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
> > Bernie, MO
> > Mikrotik Certified Consultant
> > (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
> >
> > -- 
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/165 - Release 
> Date: 11/9/2005
> >
> > 
> 
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Ray & Jean]

Well, as far what is necessary and what is not... Being a woman.. I'm 
watching and taking care of 2 networks in 2 different cities 70 miles 
apart... using the internet and phone.. Landline. Washing clothes, cleaning 
house, cooking a meal. Watching TV. Had a T-1 go out in the furthest city.. 
None of this is possible without electricity.. So a candle, shooting a 
rabbit, ugh!.. but they are 2 deer about 25 feet from my kitchen window. 
Guess I could shoot one of them.


I maybe missing everyone's point.. but people will pay for what they get.. 
As long as you give them what they want.. without too much Hassel..

My 2cents worth!
Jean
- Original Message - 
From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, George wrote:


Ok Butch. Lets take a test. Go to your office and your home and
unplug all your landlines and turn off all the cell phones for 1
week and lets see what happens.


OUCH!  I am cold and hungry.  Turning pale.  My hair is falling out
(prolly not related. :-) ).

Any rate, If I did this, I would not be happy and I couldn't work,
but I WOULD NOT die. Not sure what this "test" would prove...

It is not really a fair "test" anyway.  This would be the equivalent
of removing the wrenches from a mechanic.  These tools are directly
part of what I do for a living.  They are not incidental to HELP me
do my job, they ARE my job (so to speak).

Perhaps I am missing your point.  These things (telephone and
internet access) are both very important both from a cultural AND a
business standpoint.  I agree with you (and others) that both are a
very important part of American life.  Am I missing something else?
Do you suggest that everyone who is an American should (by some
unwritten rule) have a "right" to these things?  Even if they can't
afford it, should we come up with a way to subsidize it?  I am not
"baiting" you, I am simply not seeing the "point" you are trying to
make.

--
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/165 - Release Date: 11/9/2005




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Charles Wu]

Butch,

Technically, none of the "necessities" are ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to survival

If you didn't have electricity, you *could* light a candle
If you didn't have heat in the winter, you *could* go chop firewood in the
forest
If there was no running water, you *could* bring a bucket to the nearby lake
If there were no grocery stores, you *could* go shoot a rabbit

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Butch Evans
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:56 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge


On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, George wrote:

>Ok Butch. Lets take a test. Go to your office and your home and unplug 
>all your landlines and turn off all the cell phones for 1 week and lets 
>see what happens.

OUCH!  I am cold and hungry.  Turning pale.  My hair is falling out (prolly
not related. :-) ).

Any rate, If I did this, I would not be happy and I couldn't work, but I
WOULD NOT die. Not sure what this "test" would prove...

It is not really a fair "test" anyway.  This would be the equivalent of
removing the wrenches from a mechanic.  These tools are directly part of
what I do for a living.  They are not incidental to HELP me do my job, they
ARE my job (so to speak).

Perhaps I am missing your point.  These things (telephone and internet
access) are both very important both from a cultural AND a business
standpoint.  I agree with you (and others) that both are a very important
part of American life.  Am I missing something else? Do you suggest that
everyone who is an American should (by some unwritten rule) have a "right"
to these things?  Even if they can't afford it, should we come up with a way
to subsidize it?  I am not "baiting" you, I am simply not seeing the "point"
you are trying to make.

-- 
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Butch Evans]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, George wrote:

>Ok Butch. Lets take a test. Go to your office and your home and
>unplug all your landlines and turn off all the cell phones for 1
>week and lets see what happens.

OUCH!  I am cold and hungry.  Turning pale.  My hair is falling out
(prolly not related. :-) ).

Any rate, If I did this, I would not be happy and I couldn't work,
but I WOULD NOT die. Not sure what this "test" would prove...

It is not really a fair "test" anyway.  This would be the equivalent
of removing the wrenches from a mechanic.  These tools are directly
part of what I do for a living.  They are not incidental to HELP me
do my job, they ARE my job (so to speak).

Perhaps I am missing your point.  These things (telephone and
internet access) are both very important both from a cultural AND a
business standpoint.  I agree with you (and others) that both are a
very important part of American life.  Am I missing something else?
Do you suggest that everyone who is an American should (by some
unwritten rule) have a "right" to these things?  Even if they can't
afford it, should we come up with a way to subsidize it?  I am not
"baiting" you, I am simply not seeing the "point" you are trying to
make.

-- 
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[George]

Ok Butch.
Lets take a test.
Go to your office and your home and unplug all your landlines and turn 
off all the cell phones for 1 week and lets see what happens.


George



Butch Evans wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, George wrote:



The phone absolutely has saved lives.

And people surely died that didn't get to one fast enough or could
find one.



I think you are missing the point, George.  In the right situation,
you could save a life with a roll of scotch tape.  That does not
mean that scotch tape is a life saving invention.  Well perhaps it
does mean that, but that would not make it a "necessity of life".



The internet on the other hand, I don't have to remind you that Mac
and those hero wisp workers who bailed out people all across the
gulf with voip and net sure proved that the net is more than a
luxury.



The communications support provided by Mac and those who assisted
him is not really comparable to any "normal" situation.



As for tv, ok.



I'd have to agree 100% here.  :-)



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[RickG]

True, they are too separate points but are related in that it will
take both commodity status and total necessity before it can be
treated as such.

On 11/9/05, Butch Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, RickG wrote:
>
> >I agree with George. Internet access is practically a necessity
> >now, especially for businesses. It wont be much longer and
> >broadband will be expected in order to do any kind of business. It
> >may not be for survival of your life, but certainly it will hurt
> >you financially.
>
> Sounds like you agree with what I said, too.  However, whether it is
> a necessity or not does not make it a "commodity" item that has to
> be available in ALL locations like water/gas/electricity. (Sewer
> services do not extend into the county areas in most cases, for
> example.)
>
> --
> Butch Evans
> BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
> Bernie, MO
> Mikrotik Certified Consultant
> (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
-RickG
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[RickG]

down. Something there wasn't much of in
> > local phone or Cable TV services.
> >
> > So my view is if governement want to fight for universal broadband for
> > the rich/poor, urban/ rural, no problem, just don't devalue the
> > service that has value.
> >
> > I remember when my wife was on bed rest and she had to wear a monitor.
> > There was no problem for the world to justify (insurance approved) why
> > a remote monitoring system, was allowed to charge several hundred
> > dollars a day, for the monitor service.  How would that person be able
> > to do the monitoring without a phone or an internet connection?
> > Wouldn't you argue that the connection was a significant partner in
> > delivering the solution? In ten years I can see every elderly person
> > wearing a broadband enabled monitor of some sort. The applications are
> > limitless. why shouldn't the connection have a value so much lower
> > than the applications thatrely on the connection?
> >
> > Universal coverage, is one issue we have to really be carefull about
> > supporting.  Because then monopolies are going to be expected to serve
> > those underserved areas.  And the markets won't be left open for small
> > businesses to pursue.  ILECs resistence against using USF for its
> > purpose, is one of the best things for leaving markets open for small
> > ISPs.
> >
> > I just read that Yale University was granted some HUGE (hundred
> > millions) amount, from the governement to grant full scolarship to
> > graduate level students studying in the music field.  The reason was
> > the music field does not pay enough, to justify the college costs, and
> > its important that the nation is not without good musicians. Thus
> > money granted to cure a common problem for universal right to ahve
> > education in all fields. It become improtant enough for the country to
> > foot the bill. Whats any different with broadband. You don't see the
> > colledges lowering the price of colledge tuition down to $19.95 a
> > month.  They keep the va;lue high at $20,000 a year. They don't lower
> > the value, they jsut expect the country to foot the bill.  If the
> > governement thinks Broadband is so important for EVERYONE, even if
> > everyone can;'t afford it, then let the governement foot the bill with
> > grants to broadband providers.  Let me charge the $50 a month that
> > need to be charged to make sure the broadband offered is supported and
> > delivered with the highest standard that consumers need. Just send me
> > the grant check!
> >
> > Tom DeReggi
> > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom DeReggi
> > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >
> >
> > - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 5:30 PM
> > Subject: RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge
> >
> >
> >> 
> >> For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed for
> >> basic
> >> survival in the city.  Granted, these services have not always been
> >> available, but it is expected by all Americans that if they move
> >> somewhere,
> >> they can get those services.  Most people would not survive without
> >> these
> >> services.  Tell me how internet access fits that description.
> >> 
> >>
> >> Is it not generally expected that Internet access be available in a
> >> similar
> >> manner?  If not today, what about 5-10 years from now
> >>
> >> -Charles
> >>
> >> ---
> >> CWLab
> >> Technology Architects
> >> http://www.cwlab.com
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >> Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/163 - Release Date:
> >> 11/8/2005
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
-RickG
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Butch Evans]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, George wrote:

>The phone absolutely has saved lives.
>
>And people surely died that didn't get to one fast enough or could
>find one.

I think you are missing the point, George.  In the right situation,
you could save a life with a roll of scotch tape.  That does not
mean that scotch tape is a life saving invention.  Well perhaps it
does mean that, but that would not make it a "necessity of life".

>The internet on the other hand, I don't have to remind you that Mac
>and those hero wisp workers who bailed out people all across the
>gulf with voip and net sure proved that the net is more than a
>luxury.

The communications support provided by Mac and those who assisted
him is not really comparable to any "normal" situation.

>As for tv, ok.

I'd have to agree 100% here.  :-)

-- 
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Butch Evans]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Tom DeReggi wrote:

MAN...where do you find the time to write so much.  :-)

>TV, Phone, Internet on the other hand are luxeries, things that
>people rely on, but would survive if they did without.  I've never

You stated very eloquently what I was trying to say.  Thanks.

>seen someone die from TV/Phone/Internet with drawal, although you

Some of my customers ought to read this line.  ;-)

>never know it could happen.  There is however financial benefits of
>having those luxeries, and there are general safety benefits of
>having the above.

Yup.

>So I in know believe INternet/phone/and TV should be in the same
>catagory as necessities like utilities.. But I do believe that the
>world increases its standards as life and technology progresses.

Right.  And so in 10 years, perhaps the rest of the "network" will
be built out (and the phone lines dug up) and ubiquitous coverage
will be possible.  This is not the case today, however.  This is
partly true because the SAME people (RBOCS) who sell DSL for $14.95
are charging sometimes exorbitant rates for T1 lines.

>possible. A simple question is asked, why shouldn't every person in
>America have complete communications? What barrier could possibly
>justify not being able to accomplish it?  Withholding something

As to the first question, the answer is money.  For the second
question...money.

>My answer is the battle to to prove to the world it is NOT a
>commodity. It is a service that has value and a service worth
>paying for.  I still remember when I paid $500 a month for my ISDN

AMEN!  Preach on!

>So my view is if governement want to fight for universal broadband
>for the rich/poor, urban/ rural, no problem, just don't devalue the
>service that has value.

There is SO MUCH truth here!  This is the way the RBOCs are fighting
the war, too.  As I alluded to above, the RBOCs are attempting to
cut our feet from under us by underselling access to consumers and
then charging us enough to make it difficult (impossible in some
cases) to compete.

-- 
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Butch Evans]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, RickG wrote:

>I agree with George. Internet access is practically a necessity
>now, especially for businesses. It wont be much longer and
>broadband will be expected in order to do any kind of business. It
>may not be for survival of your life, but certainly it will hurt
>you financially.

Sounds like you agree with what I said, too.  However, whether it is
a necessity or not does not make it a "commodity" item that has to
be available in ALL locations like water/gas/electricity. (Sewer
services do not extend into the county areas in most cases, for
example.)

-- 
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Butch Evans]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Charles Wu wrote:

>
>For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed for basic
>survival in the city.  Granted, these services have not always been
>available, but it is expected by all Americans that if they move somewhere,
>they can get those services.  Most people would not survive without these
>services.  Tell me how internet access fits that description.
>
>
>Is it not generally expected that Internet access be available in a
>similar manner?  If not today, what about 5-10 years from now

Good try, but not the same thing.  High speed internet access IS
available (very nearly 100% if you count satellite).  I guess the
difference is the "tone" I read in your post (which MAY not have
even been there) that implied you believe that (like the utilities
above) internet access is a basic item that should be available to
everyone.

Let me offer some other examples:  I live in Malden, MO.  This is a
town of about 5000.  We have a health clinic that closes at 6pm M-F
and is not open on weekends.  If I need medical attention other than
those hours, I have to drive 45 minutes to get to an emergency room.
Granted, there is an ambulance in town, but that is not the same as
a hopital.  When I moved to Malden, I KNEW that there was no 24 hour
medical facility here.  I moved here anyway.

Here is one that is a little less "important", but still of some
import (at least to me).  There is NO store closer than 35 minutes
that is open after 11pm.  I am a night owl, so what happens if I
want a soda at midnight?  Hmmm. (brb... :-).

The point here is that I KNEW, before I moved here, that these
things were true.  I moved here anyway.  If they bother me so much
that I can't live without these SERVICES (<-- important word there),
then it is up to ME to move or deal with the reality.  If I had a
business that required me to be on the internet, I would not move
that business to a location where internet access is not availble.
AND, if my business was suddenly in need of internet access and none
was available, then I would do what is necessary to obtain it.  The
fact is, it may cost me more money to do it.  Even today, I would
bet that you can buy T1 service for HALF what I have to pay here.
These things are just a fact of life.

-- 
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Peter R.]

Actually the internet is likes roads and education.
Without it, you are at a definite economic disadvantage.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[George]

Tom DeReggi wrote:


TV, Phone, Internet on the other hand are luxeries, things that people 
rely on, but would survive if they did without.  I've never seen someone 
die from TV/Phone/Internet with drawal, although you never know it could 
happen.



Tom. You should rethink what you just said about you've never heard of 
anyone dying because of no phone or internet.


The phone absolutely has saved lives.

And people surely died that didn't get to one fast enough or could find one.

The internet on the other hand, I don't have to remind you that Mac and 
those hero wisp workers who bailed out people all across the gulf with 
voip and net sure proved that the net is more than a luxury.


As for tv, ok.


Sincerely

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[A. Huppenthal]

 see every elderly person 
wearing a broadband enabled monitor of some sort. The applications are 
limitless. why shouldn't the connection have a value so much lower 
than the applications thatrely on the connection?


Universal coverage, is one issue we have to really be carefull about 
supporting.  Because then monopolies are going to be expected to serve 
those underserved areas.  And the markets won't be left open for small 
businesses to pursue.  ILECs resistence against using USF for its 
purpose, is one of the best things for leaving markets open for small 
ISPs.


I just read that Yale University was granted some HUGE (hundred 
millions) amount, from the governement to grant full scolarship to 
graduate level students studying in the music field.  The reason was 
the music field does not pay enough, to justify the college costs, and 
its important that the nation is not without good musicians. Thus 
money granted to cure a common problem for universal right to ahve 
education in all fields. It become improtant enough for the country to 
foot the bill. Whats any different with broadband. You don't see the 
colledges lowering the price of colledge tuition down to $19.95 a 
month.  They keep the va;lue high at $20,000 a year. They don't lower 
the value, they jsut expect the country to foot the bill.  If the 
governement thinks Broadband is so important for EVERYONE, even if 
everyone can;'t afford it, then let the governement foot the bill with 
grants to broadband providers.  Let me charge the $50 a month that 
need to be charged to make sure the broadband offered is supported and 
delivered with the highest standard that consumers need. Just send me 
the grant check!


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc





Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 5:30 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge




For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed for 
basic

survival in the city.  Granted, these services have not always been
available, but it is expected by all Americans that if they move 
somewhere,
they can get those services.  Most people would not survive without 
these

services.  Tell me how internet access fits that description.


Is it not generally expected that Internet access be available in a 
similar

manner?  If not today, what about 5-10 years from now

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/163 - Release Date: 
11/8/2005







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Tom DeReggi]

lds. It become 
improtant enough for the country to foot the bill. Whats any different with 
broadband. You don't see the colledges lowering the price of colledge 
tuition down to $19.95 a month.  They keep the va;lue high at $20,000 a 
year. They don't lower the value, they jsut expect the country to foot the 
bill.  If the governement thinks Broadband is so important for EVERYONE, 
even if everyone can;'t afford it, then let the governement foot the bill 
with grants to broadband providers.  Let me charge the $50 a month that need 
to be charged to make sure the broadband offered is supported and delivered 
with the highest standard that consumers need. Just send me the grant check!


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc





Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 5:30 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge




For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed for 
basic

survival in the city.  Granted, these services have not always been
available, but it is expected by all Americans that if they move 
somewhere,

they can get those services.  Most people would not survive without these
services.  Tell me how internet access fits that description.


Is it not generally expected that Internet access be available in a 
similar

manner?  If not today, what about 5-10 years from now

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/163 - Release Date: 11/8/2005




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[RickG]

I agree with George. Internet access is practically a necessity now,
especially for businesses. It wont be much longer and broadband will
be expected in order to do any kind of business. It may not be for
survival of your life, but certainly it will hurt you financially.

On 11/9/05, Charles Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed for basic
> survival in the city.  Granted, these services have not always been
> available, but it is expected by all Americans that if they move somewhere,
> they can get those services.  Most people would not survive without these
> services.  Tell me how internet access fits that description.
> 
>
> Is it not generally expected that Internet access be available in a similar
> manner?  If not today, what about 5-10 years from now
>
> -Charles
>
> ---
> CWLab
> Technology Architects
> http://www.cwlab.com
>
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
-RickG
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Charles Wu]

For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed for basic
survival in the city.  Granted, these services have not always been
available, but it is expected by all Americans that if they move somewhere,
they can get those services.  Most people would not survive without these
services.  Tell me how internet access fits that description.


Is it not generally expected that Internet access be available in a similar
manner?  If not today, what about 5-10 years from now

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Butch Evans]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Charles Wu wrote:

>Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis
>
>Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any
>different?

Charles,
I don't often find myself in total disagreement with your
statements.  I am on this point, however.  Well, maybe not "total",
but close.  The RBOCs and cableops are working hard to commoditize
the internet connection.  There are efforts on the part of many
municipalities to do the same.  Your city is doing this now.  I am
not sure there is anything we can do to "sway the tide" that seems
to be driven partly by the RBOCs and others, but I don't agree that
internet access fits the same "class" of service as the utilities
you mentioned.

For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed
for basic survival in the city.  Granted, these services have not
always been available, but it is expected by all Americans that if
they move somewhere, they can get those services.  Most people would
not survive without these services.  Tell me how internet access
fits that description.

Internet access is something that is NOT required for basic
necessities.  It IS something that most businesses can't do without.
With that in mind, why do you compare it to these other utilities?
I will do ok if the internet access business dries up.  I provide
other services that don't require me to even sell internet access.
These services work over any high speed connection.  One business
feeds the other.

NOW, to answer your original question: I think the question is
framed wrong.  I don't see us EVER getting to the point where we,
the network operator, will be paying for transports with
"origination fees" or "termination fees", as the telcos are doing
now.  Perhaps I missed the point of this conversation, as I have not
read all the posts, but I just don't believe it will ever get there.

-- 
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[RickG]

Since 1997 when we rolled out the first "broadband" in the area, I've
been saying we'd eventually bill by the bit. I actually did so in 1999
using an Alot box but only for the bandwidth hogs. I still say it will
be mainstream one day. In fact, I can see the bandwidth costing more
depending on the type & QOS. How about video costing more than VOIP,
etc? It makes too much sense and it's just a matter of time.

On 11/7/05, Charles Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> So Charles, start yourself a "usage based only" operation and let us
> know how that works out for you.
> 
>
> Lol...
>
> We all are already - only difference today b/n the ISP & the other 3
> operations is the fact that the ISP today obfiscates their "usage billing"
> in legalese buried deep within the fine print of a contract
>
> -Charles
>
> ---
> CWLab
> Technology Architects
> http://www.cwlab.com
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John Scrivner
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:00 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge
>
>
> Scriv
>
>
> Charles Wu wrote:
>
> >Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis
> >
> >Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any
> >different?
> >
> >-Charles
> >
> >---
> >CWLab
> >Technology Architects
> >http://www.cwlab.com
> >
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> >Behalf Of John Scrivner
> >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:01 AM
> >To: WISPA General List
> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge
> >
> >
> >I can see it now. We will soon be charging for termination and
> >origination of IP traffic on networks. Just like long distance phone
> >calls used to be. Yaykill me now.
> >Scriv
> >
> >
> >Frank Muto wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Just passing on some information that may be of interest to anyone.
> >>Entitlement vs. laws, and a company's TOS/AUP I'm sure are all involved
> >>in one form or another, as with anything else concerning the use of a
> >>network to access the Internet or other service.
> >>
> >>As far as I am concerned, this whole Internet and who controls (owns)
> >>it, is just getting dumber and dumber by the minute. Congress, the FCC,
> >>state and local governments, special interest groups, the Bell's,
> >>xLEC's etc, etc, etc., can all suck eggs.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Frank
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- Original Message -
> >>From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Frank,
> >>>I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge myself.
> >>>It
> >>>states:
> >>>
> >>>2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
> >>>choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
> >>><http://www.cybertelecom.org/security/Calea.htm>;
> >>>
> >>>I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for
> >>>applications or services which act as a server or daemon for
> >>>delivering content to others. Broadband networks are not designed to
> >>>be content delivery networks from the customer end generally. In the
> >>>case of wireless broadband access,  customers can cause network
> >>>problems if they allow thousands of open ports to a popular file
> >>>download. I have seen this many times and I have provisions in my AUP
> >>>which allow me to turn customers off who cause network problems from
> >>>trying to use broadband as a content delivery mechanism. I welcome
> >>>other thoughts but I believe we need to have the ability to stop
> >>>abuses of a network which can cause us problems. With that said I
> >>>agree that there needs to be some commitment from operators to allow
> >>>access to their networks for free and open competition. I just do not
> >>>agree that there can be no limits to what we can or cannot allow on
> >>>the network. Especially when some things can harm network
> >>>functionality. John Scrivner
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
-RickG
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Charles Wu]

So Charles, start yourself a "usage based only" operation and let us 
know how that works out for you.


Lol...

We all are already - only difference today b/n the ISP & the other 3
operations is the fact that the ISP today obfiscates their "usage billing"
in legalese buried deep within the fine print of a contract

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge


Scriv


Charles Wu wrote:

>Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis
>
>Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any 
>different?
>
>-Charles
>
>---
>CWLab
>Technology Architects
>http://www.cwlab.com
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>Behalf Of John Scrivner
>Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:01 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge
>
>
>I can see it now. We will soon be charging for termination and
>origination of IP traffic on networks. Just like long distance phone 
>calls used to be. Yaykill me now.
>Scriv
>
>
>Frank Muto wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Just passing on some information that may be of interest to anyone.
>>Entitlement vs. laws, and a company's TOS/AUP I'm sure are all involved 
>>in one form or another, as with anything else concerning the use of a 
>>network to access the Internet or other service.
>>
>>As far as I am concerned, this whole Internet and who controls (owns)
>>it, is just getting dumber and dumber by the minute. Congress, the FCC, 
>>state and local governments, special interest groups, the Bell's, 
>>xLEC's etc, etc, etc., can all suck eggs.
>>
>>
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>>Frank,
>>>I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge myself.
>>>It
>>>states:
>>>
>>>2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
>>>choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement 
>>><http://www.cybertelecom.org/security/Calea.htm>;
>>>
>>>I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for
>>>applications or services which act as a server or daemon for 
>>>delivering content to others. Broadband networks are not designed to 
>>>be content delivery networks from the customer end generally. In the 
>>>case of wireless broadband access,  customers can cause network 
>>>problems if they allow thousands of open ports to a popular file 
>>>download. I have seen this many times and I have provisions in my AUP 
>>>which allow me to turn customers off who cause network problems from 
>>>trying to use broadband as a content delivery mechanism. I welcome 
>>>other thoughts but I believe we need to have the ability to stop 
>>>abuses of a network which can cause us problems. With that said I 
>>>agree that there needs to be some commitment from operators to allow 
>>>access to their networks for free and open competition. I just do not 
>>>agree that there can be no limits to what we can or cannot allow on 
>>>the network. Especially when some things can harm network 
>>>functionality. John Scrivner
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

In a way, we are all billing by the bit/byte. 

The "hard" limit is the amount of bandwidth that someone can transfer on 
the network if they  run their connection full blast all of the time. 

The second limit is the cap on amount of bandwidth included in a plan - 
i.e. 10Gig/month of transfer. 

I have monthly bandwidth caps in my AUP, and it is there to justify the 
disconnection of service to someone who resells bandwidth to others 
and/or consistently over uses the connection.   So I guess I am putting 
some pretty liberal limits on what my subscribers can do, but there are 
limits.


People want a simple plan that makes sense and includes a fair amount of 
usability, not something that forces them to watch their usage like a 
hawk for fear of going over the limits on a plan that is designed to 
extract every last penny out of them - like the telcos/cellcos want to 
do.  They really think that someone is willing to pay $5 to have video 
sports highlights delivered to their crippled cell phone that only works 
on their system and only has access to their content.   
SBC/Verizon/other telcos want to apply this model to Internet service.  
What a joke!


When the dualmode cellphones with wifi/cellular capability that are not 
locked to specific carriers come along and a person can choose between 
data from the overpriced, underspeed cellular network - or nearly free 
wifi bandwidth that is 10x faster and doesn't carry a "per byte" charge, 
which one do you think a person is going to choose? 

Talk about dumb.  It is only a matter of time before the cellco/telcos 
to dump their model and figure out how to succeed in the new businessplace.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]





Charles Wu wrote:


The elecric company doesn't care what you do with their electricity... The
gas company doesn't care what you do with their gas... The water company
doesn't care what you do with your water...

Why should the ISP care what you do with your connection, as long as it 
doesn't affect their network?  

 



The electric, water, gas company all bill based on usage
Competitive marketing pressures have forced ISPs offer "unlimited"
all-you-can eat plans

If I was billing by the bit/byte, I wouldn't give a #$%#^ what the customer
did (let him resell, share his connection w/ neighbors, etc - I don't care,
b/c now there's no theft of service, since I get paid on everything
transfered)

-Charles


---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[John Scrivner]

So Charles, start yourself a "usage based only" operation and let us 
know how that works out for you.

Scriv


Charles Wu wrote:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any different?

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge


I can see it now. We will soon be charging for termination and 
origination of IP traffic on networks. Just like long distance phone 
calls used to be. Yaykill me now.

Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:

 

Just passing on some information that may be of interest to anyone. 
Entitlement vs. laws, and a company's TOS/AUP I'm sure are all involved 
in one form or another, as with anything else concerning the use of a 
network to access the Internet or other service.


As far as I am concerned, this whole Internet and who controls (owns) 
it, is just getting dumber and dumber by the minute. Congress, the FCC, 
state and local governments, special interest groups, the Bell's, 
xLEC's etc, etc, etc., can all suck eggs.




Frank





- Original Message -
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




   


Frank,
I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge myself. 
It

states:

2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their 
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement 
<http://www.cybertelecom.org/security/Calea.htm>;


I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for 
applications or services which act as a server or daemon for 
delivering content to others. Broadband networks are not designed to 
be content delivery networks from the customer end generally. In the 
case of wireless broadband access,  customers can cause network 
problems if they allow thousands of open ports to a popular file 
download. I have seen this many times and I have provisions in my AUP 
which allow me to turn customers off who cause network problems from 
trying to use broadband as a content delivery mechanism. I welcome 
other thoughts but I believe we need to have the ability to stop 
abuses of a network which can cause us problems. With that said I 
agree that there needs to be some commitment from operators to allow 
access to their networks for free and open competition. I just do not 
agree that there can be no limits to what we can or cannot allow on 
the network. Especially when some things can harm network 
functionality. John Scrivner



  

 




   


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Charles Wu]

The elecric company doesn't care what you do with their electricity... The
gas company doesn't care what you do with their gas... The water company
doesn't care what you do with your water...

Why should the ISP care what you do with your connection, as long as it 
doesn't affect their network?  

>>>

The electric, water, gas company all bill based on usage
Competitive marketing pressures have forced ISPs offer "unlimited"
all-you-can eat plans

If I was billing by the bit/byte, I wouldn't give a #$%#^ what the customer
did (let him resell, share his connection w/ neighbors, etc - I don't care,
b/c now there's no theft of service, since I get paid on everything
transfered)

-Charles


---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Tom DeReggi]

.  Whats ironic is I still would have 
given it a way if I was asked to get the press benefit, if I had the right 
to block what type of usew that FREE service would have, so there was an up 
sell for my premium paid service.  After all I have to pay my bills some 
how, and that cell site was costing me near $2000 a month in reoccuring 
fees.


The second the tables turn, and someone wants to control how the small 
independant ISP controls its own network, its no longer a good idea.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 10:30 AM
Subject: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge


In light of SBC CEO Edward Whitacre’s comments about charging websites a 
fee
for providing services to SBC broadband customers, NYCwireless is 
launching

the NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge.

NYCwireless is challenging every company that provides broadband services 
in

NYC to make a public statement supporting the 4 Network Neutrality
principles outlined below. We will keep a scorecard on the NYCwireless
website showing which companies have shown a commitment to free trade and
open access by embracing these principles.

Broadband Challenge
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge

Broadband Challenge Scorecard
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallengeScoreCard


Every provider should include a web page with their public statement on
their own websites. We suggest that the URL to find a provider’s stance on
Network Neutrality be made available to the Internet community via the URL
http://YourISPWebsite/neutral.html.


Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Jeromie Reeves]

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


The elecric company doesn't care what you do with their electricity...
The gas company doesn't care what you do with their gas...
The water company doesn't care what you do with your water...


Not totaly true. You can not resell the service. You can not share your 
services with neightbors

for more then a short time.



Why should the ISP care what you do with your connection, as long as 
it doesn't affect their network?


I agree with this. As long as end users do no atempt to sell there pipe 
they are golden to do what ever they want.
Keeping under the BW limits set in place is key. No services from said 
account also.


 
Asinine initiatives like IMS and the desire for the telcos/cellcos to 
have complete control over what their users do or don't do will cause 
them to lose customers like crazy.  They don't even understand what 
kind of a detriment that crap will be to their service levels.


No but they understand monopoly and are working to lock them up tighter 
then ever.





More information?  Pick up the latest Wired and see how the 
combination of Apple/cellcos/manufacturers/Hollywood managed to 
produce such an inferior product as the Motorola ROKR phone.   I hope 
our moronic telcos continue to offer these lame-brained ideas up.


They will and at ever decresing prices to keep any compitition from 
gaining more then a few percent of market share.





Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Charles Wu wrote:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any 
different?


-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge


I can see it now. We will soon be charging for termination and 
origination of IP traffic on networks. Just like long distance phone 
calls used to be. Yaykill me now.

Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:

 

Just passing on some information that may be of interest to anyone. 
Entitlement vs. laws, and a company's TOS/AUP I'm sure are all 
involved in one form or another, as with anything else concerning 
the use of a network to access the Internet or other service.


As far as I am concerned, this whole Internet and who controls 
(owns) it, is just getting dumber and dumber by the minute. 
Congress, the FCC, state and local governments, special interest 
groups, the Bell's, xLEC's etc, etc, etc., can all suck eggs.




Frank





- Original Message -
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




  


Frank,
I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge 
myself. It

states:

2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their 
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement 
<http://www.cybertelecom.org/security/Calea.htm>;


I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for 
applications or services which act as a server or daemon for 
delivering content to others. Broadband networks are not designed 
to be content delivery networks from the customer end generally. In 
the case of wireless broadband access,  customers can cause network 
problems if they allow thousands of open ports to a popular file 
download. I have seen this many times and I have provisions in my 
AUP which allow me to turn customers off who cause network problems 
from trying to use broadband as a content delivery mechanism. I 
welcome other thoughts but I believe we need to have the ability to 
stop abuses of a network which can cause us problems. With that 
said I agree that there needs to be some commitment from operators 
to allow access to their networks for free and open competition. I 
just do not agree that there can be no limits to what we can or 
cannot allow on the network. Especially when some things can harm 
network functionality. John Scrivner



 





  






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Tony Weasler]

A modern marketing mistake created this mess.  A company started to
sell a product that it was incapable of delivering: unlimited network
access.  Other companies followed suit and assumed that they would
never be compelled to make good on their promise.  Now, instead of
admitting that they were wrong, most providers are trying to redefine
the word 'unlimited' through legal documents that attempt to restrict
their customers' actions.

A far better approach would be to determine what their network can
handle and charge appropriately for the usage of their customers.  If
their network can't provide the customer-demanded services at a fair
price, then they need to update their network, reduce their costs, or
leave the market.  It really can be that simple.

Regulations in this type of system are only necessary to ensure that
providers are disclosing the information necessary for consumers to
choose amongst the competitors.  Micro-managing the various services
running on top of the network only causes the services to route around
the complexity of the regulations and adds unnecessary expense for the
consumers and a barrier to entry for future competitors.

Jeff Pulver wrote a very interesting blog entry on Friday about the
issue of bit-pipes vs. artificially-restricted communications pipes.
It seems that Congress might be more informed than the FCC on this
issue.  Time will tell:
http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003274.html

 - Tony

On 11/7/2005 1:51 PM, Charles Wu created:
> Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis
> 
> Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any different?
> 
> -Charles
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Peter R.]

John Scrivner wrote:

I can see it now. We will soon be charging for termination and 
origination of IP traffic on networks. Just like long distance phone 
calls used to be. Yaykill me now.

Scriv


That's the model the RBOCs are comfortable with - since it makes them 
billions.


REgards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[RickG]

LOL Frank! Give'em their eggs over hard cause they'll never take it
the easy way!
I agree with your sediments!

On 11/7/05, Frank Muto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just passing on some information that may be of interest to anyone.
> Entitlement vs. laws, and a company's TOS/AUP I'm sure are all involved in
> one form or another, as with anything else concerning the use of a network
> to access the Internet or other service.
>
> As far as I am concerned, this whole Internet and who controls (owns) it, is
> just getting dumber and dumber by the minute. Congress, the FCC, state and
> local governments, special interest groups, the Bell's, xLEC's etc, etc,
> etc., can all suck eggs.
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > Frank,
> > I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge myself. It
> > states:
> >
> > 2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
> > choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
> > ;
> >
> > I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for
> > applications or services which act as a server or daemon for delivering
> > content to others. Broadband networks are not designed to be content
> > delivery networks from the customer end generally. In the case of
> > wireless broadband access,  customers can cause network problems if they
> > allow thousands of open ports to a popular file download. I have seen
> > this many times and I have provisions in my AUP which allow me to turn
> > customers off who cause network problems from trying to use broadband as
> > a content delivery mechanism. I welcome other thoughts but I believe we
> > need to have the ability to stop abuses of a network which can cause us
> > problems. With that said I agree that there needs to be some commitment
> > from operators to allow access to their networks for free and open
> > competition. I just do not agree that there can be no limits to what we
> > can or cannot allow on the network. Especially when some things can harm
> > network functionality.
> > John Scrivner
> >
> >
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
-RickG
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

The elecric company doesn't care what you do with their electricity...
The gas company doesn't care what you do with their gas...
The water company doesn't care what you do with your water...

Why should the ISP care what you do with your connection, as long as it 
doesn't affect their network?  

Asinine initiatives like IMS and the desire for the telcos/cellcos to 
have complete control over what their users do or don't do will cause 
them to lose customers like crazy.  They don't even understand what kind 
of a detriment that crap will be to their service levels.


More information?  Pick up the latest Wired and see how the combination 
of Apple/cellcos/manufacturers/Hollywood managed to produce such an 
inferior product as the Motorola ROKR phone.   I hope our moronic telcos 
continue to offer these lame-brained ideas up.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Charles Wu wrote:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any different?

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge


I can see it now. We will soon be charging for termination and 
origination of IP traffic on networks. Just like long distance phone 
calls used to be. Yaykill me now.

Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:

 

Just passing on some information that may be of interest to anyone. 
Entitlement vs. laws, and a company's TOS/AUP I'm sure are all involved 
in one form or another, as with anything else concerning the use of a 
network to access the Internet or other service.


As far as I am concerned, this whole Internet and who controls (owns) 
it, is just getting dumber and dumber by the minute. Congress, the FCC, 
state and local governments, special interest groups, the Bell's, 
xLEC's etc, etc, etc., can all suck eggs.




Frank





- Original Message -
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




   


Frank,
I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge myself. 
It

states:

2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their 
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement 
<http://www.cybertelecom.org/security/Calea.htm>;


I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for 
applications or services which act as a server or daemon for 
delivering content to others. Broadband networks are not designed to 
be content delivery networks from the customer end generally. In the 
case of wireless broadband access,  customers can cause network 
problems if they allow thousands of open ports to a popular file 
download. I have seen this many times and I have provisions in my AUP 
which allow me to turn customers off who cause network problems from 
trying to use broadband as a content delivery mechanism. I welcome 
other thoughts but I believe we need to have the ability to stop 
abuses of a network which can cause us problems. With that said I 
agree that there needs to be some commitment from operators to allow 
access to their networks for free and open competition. I just do not 
agree that there can be no limits to what we can or cannot allow on 
the network. Especially when some things can harm network 
functionality. John Scrivner



  

 




   



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Charles Wu]

Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any different?

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge


I can see it now. We will soon be charging for termination and 
origination of IP traffic on networks. Just like long distance phone 
calls used to be. Yaykill me now.
Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:

>Just passing on some information that may be of interest to anyone. 
>Entitlement vs. laws, and a company's TOS/AUP I'm sure are all involved 
>in one form or another, as with anything else concerning the use of a 
>network to access the Internet or other service.
>
>As far as I am concerned, this whole Internet and who controls (owns) 
>it, is just getting dumber and dumber by the minute. Congress, the FCC, 
>state and local governments, special interest groups, the Bell's, 
>xLEC's etc, etc, etc., can all suck eggs.
>
>
>
>Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>  
>
>>Frank,
>>I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge myself. 
>>It
>>states:
>>
>>2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their 
>>choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement 
>><http://www.cybertelecom.org/security/Calea.htm>;
>>
>>I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for 
>>applications or services which act as a server or daemon for 
>>delivering content to others. Broadband networks are not designed to 
>>be content delivery networks from the customer end generally. In the 
>>case of wireless broadband access,  customers can cause network 
>>problems if they allow thousands of open ports to a popular file 
>>download. I have seen this many times and I have provisions in my AUP 
>>which allow me to turn customers off who cause network problems from 
>>trying to use broadband as a content delivery mechanism. I welcome 
>>other thoughts but I believe we need to have the ability to stop 
>>abuses of a network which can cause us problems. With that said I 
>>agree that there needs to be some commitment from operators to allow 
>>access to their networks for free and open competition. I just do not 
>>agree that there can be no limits to what we can or cannot allow on 
>>the network. Especially when some things can harm network 
>>functionality. John Scrivner
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>  
>
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[John Scrivner]

I can see it now. We will soon be charging for termination and 
origination of IP traffic on networks. Just like long distance phone 
calls used to be. Yaykill me now.

Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:


Just passing on some information that may be of interest to anyone.
Entitlement vs. laws, and a company's TOS/AUP I'm sure are all involved in
one form or another, as with anything else concerning the use of a network
to access the Internet or other service.

As far as I am concerned, this whole Internet and who controls (owns) it, is
just getting dumber and dumber by the minute. Congress, the FCC, state and
local governments, special interest groups, the Bell's, xLEC's etc, etc,
etc., can all suck eggs.



Frank





- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



 


Frank,
I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge myself. It
states:

2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
;

I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for
applications or services which act as a server or daemon for delivering
content to others. Broadband networks are not designed to be content
delivery networks from the customer end generally. In the case of
wireless broadband access,  customers can cause network problems if they
allow thousands of open ports to a popular file download. I have seen
this many times and I have provisions in my AUP which allow me to turn
customers off who cause network problems from trying to use broadband as
a content delivery mechanism. I welcome other thoughts but I believe we
need to have the ability to stop abuses of a network which can cause us
problems. With that said I agree that there needs to be some commitment
from operators to allow access to their networks for free and open
competition. I just do not agree that there can be no limits to what we
can or cannot allow on the network. Especially when some things can harm
network functionality.
John Scrivner


   



 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[George]

Couple of thoughts on this.

Seeing they are moving to fee based non profit rather than a community 
group that is being financed by themselves and their node hosts,
Fine, let the them go to the school of hard nocks and figure out why our 
subs are not allowed to run servers on the network without us the 
network operator approval and pre configuration.


The second thought I have about beng able to hook up "Legal Devices",
How are they going to get anyone to pay them for their bandwidth if 
their subs connect 12dbi omni's on 200mw cards as free open  wifi 
networks and give the whole neighborhood free inet.


As a matter of fact, I would say both of these are interwoven and they 
will soon be singing a different song after they get their diplomas.


George





John Scrivner wrote:

Frank,
I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge myself. It 
states:


2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their 
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement 
;


I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for 
applications or services which act as a server or daemon for delivering 
content to others. Broadband networks are not designed to be content 
delivery networks from the customer end generally. In the case of 
wireless broadband access,  customers can cause network problems if they 
allow thousands of open ports to a popular file download. I have seen 
this many times and I have provisions in my AUP which allow me to turn 
customers off who cause network problems from trying to use broadband as 
a content delivery mechanism. I welcome other thoughts but I believe we 
need to have the ability to stop abuses of a network which can cause us 
problems. With that said I agree that there needs to be some commitment 
from operators to allow access to their networks for free and open 
competition. I just do not agree that there can be no limits to what we 
can or cannot allow on the network. Especially when some things can harm 
network functionality.

John Scrivner


Frank Muto wrote:

In light of SBC CEO Edward Whitacre’s comments about charging websites 
a fee
for providing services to SBC broadband customers, NYCwireless is 
launching

the NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge.

NYCwireless is challenging every company that provides broadband 
services in

NYC to make a public statement supporting the 4 Network Neutrality
principles outlined below. We will keep a scorecard on the NYCwireless
website showing which companies have shown a commitment to free trade and
open access by embracing these principles.

Broadband Challenge
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge

Broadband Challenge Scorecard
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallengeScoreCard 




Every provider should include a web page with their public statement on
their own websites. We suggest that the URL to find a provider’s 
stance on
Network Neutrality be made available to the Internet community via the 
URL

http://YourISPWebsite/neutral.html.


Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Frank Muto]

Just passing on some information that may be of interest to anyone.
Entitlement vs. laws, and a company's TOS/AUP I'm sure are all involved in
one form or another, as with anything else concerning the use of a network
to access the Internet or other service.

As far as I am concerned, this whole Internet and who controls (owns) it, is
just getting dumber and dumber by the minute. Congress, the FCC, state and
local governments, special interest groups, the Bell's, xLEC's etc, etc,
etc., can all suck eggs.



Frank





- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Frank,
> I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge myself. It
> states:
>
> 2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
> choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
> ;
>
> I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for
> applications or services which act as a server or daemon for delivering
> content to others. Broadband networks are not designed to be content
> delivery networks from the customer end generally. In the case of
> wireless broadband access,  customers can cause network problems if they
> allow thousands of open ports to a popular file download. I have seen
> this many times and I have provisions in my AUP which allow me to turn
> customers off who cause network problems from trying to use broadband as
> a content delivery mechanism. I welcome other thoughts but I believe we
> need to have the ability to stop abuses of a network which can cause us
> problems. With that said I agree that there needs to be some commitment
> from operators to allow access to their networks for free and open
> competition. I just do not agree that there can be no limits to what we
> can or cannot allow on the network. Especially when some things can harm
> network functionality.
> John Scrivner
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[John Scrivner]

Frank,
I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge myself. It 
states:


2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their 
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement 
;


I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for 
applications or services which act as a server or daemon for delivering 
content to others. Broadband networks are not designed to be content 
delivery networks from the customer end generally. In the case of 
wireless broadband access,  customers can cause network problems if they 
allow thousands of open ports to a popular file download. I have seen 
this many times and I have provisions in my AUP which allow me to turn 
customers off who cause network problems from trying to use broadband as 
a content delivery mechanism. I welcome other thoughts but I believe we 
need to have the ability to stop abuses of a network which can cause us 
problems. With that said I agree that there needs to be some commitment 
from operators to allow access to their networks for free and open 
competition. I just do not agree that there can be no limits to what we 
can or cannot allow on the network. Especially when some things can harm 
network functionality.

John Scrivner


Frank Muto wrote:


In light of SBC CEO Edward Whitacre’s comments about charging websites a fee
for providing services to SBC broadband customers, NYCwireless is launching
the NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge.

NYCwireless is challenging every company that provides broadband services in
NYC to make a public statement supporting the 4 Network Neutrality
principles outlined below. We will keep a scorecard on the NYCwireless
website showing which companies have shown a commitment to free trade and
open access by embracing these principles.

Broadband Challenge
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge

Broadband Challenge Scorecard
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallengeScoreCard


Every provider should include a web page with their public statement on
their own websites. We suggest that the URL to find a provider’s stance on
Network Neutrality be made available to the Internet community via the URL
http://YourISPWebsite/neutral.html.


Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us



 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

[Frank Muto]

In light of SBC CEO Edward Whitacre’s comments about charging websites a fee
for providing services to SBC broadband customers, NYCwireless is launching
the NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge.

NYCwireless is challenging every company that provides broadband services in
NYC to make a public statement supporting the 4 Network Neutrality
principles outlined below. We will keep a scorecard on the NYCwireless
website showing which companies have shown a commitment to free trade and
open access by embracing these principles.

Broadband Challenge
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge

Broadband Challenge Scorecard
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallengeScoreCard


Every provider should include a web page with their public statement on
their own websites. We suggest that the URL to find a provider’s stance on
Network Neutrality be made available to the Internet community via the URL
http://YourISPWebsite/neutral.html.


Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/