RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe providervs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)

2006-01-04 Thread Charles Wu 
Title: Message



snipYou seem 
to be taking this beyond what anyone has stated. There maybe those 
that say the things that you claim above, however what yousaid was that 
"...preference of one's own traffic...is not that muchdifferent than..." and 
you went on to show a link to a story thatwas NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same 
thing. That is what I was 
pointingout./snipFor some reason, I am 
getting a feeling that thread may be going beyond "topic debate" to "personal 
attacks" -- so I will restate my original point (which I may not have been 
completely clear on b/c this is a topic that I have been thinking of / examining 
for quite some time now, and things that seem obviously clear to me may not be 
so for a casual observer)
Read the following article and tell me what you 
think
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full
Now, Look back at the original 
topic of debate and ask yourself the following question...is there REALLY a 
distinction between the "prioritization" and/or "discrimination (or blocking 
taken to the Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets? If you 
think about it, prioritizing "certain my preferred packets" across my physical 
network is really no different than discriminating (depreferencing or blocking) 
my competitors -- in fact, the Network Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would 
argue that "allowing" certain providers to pay for prioritized / privilege 
access is extortion.

The topic of debate that I am addressing is the 
argument between "it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network so I can do whatever I want" vs. "the 
Internet is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality). 
The it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network argumentSBC 
started it, now BellSouth is getting into the act. Two articles (1, 2) highlight 
comments made by William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth, about how hed really like 
to be able to charge internet companies for priority access to his network and 
customers.A senior telecommunications executive said yesterday that 
Internet service providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web 
sites or services priority in reaching computer users, a controversial system 
that would significantly change how the Internet operates.William L. 
Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told 
reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should 
be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its 
search site load faster than that of Google Inc.Or, Smith said, his 
company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that its 
service can operate with the same quality as BellSouths 
offering.Network Neutrality Broadband 
Challenge
Network Neutrality is the concept that network operators provide 
free and non-discriminatory transport on their networks between the endpoints of 
the Internet. This has been a basic concept and function of the Internet since 
it was invented, and is adopted by the FCC in these four principles to ensure 
that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable and accessible to 
all consumers:
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet 
contentof their choice; 
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of 
their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; 

3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal 
devicesthat do not harm the network; and 
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network 
providers, application and service providers, and content 
providers. 

Now, lets open the floor for discussion...

-Charles---CWLabTechnology 
Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe providervs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)

2006-01-04 Thread Mac Dearman 

 The way I see it is this:   (automatic insertion of my .o2 cents)

 If Bell South can charge people extra for added services I can too. 
You pay extra for call waiting, call forwarding, call blocking...etc - - 
- you pay extra on my internet service to have me give your VoIP packets 
prioritization! My packet prioritization is an extra added value 
service that I am not required to do  - I offer it as a service to my 
PAYING clients.


 beating chest  flailing arms wildly   :-P

Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
www.inetsouth.com
www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts)
318-728-8600 - Rayville
318-728-9600





Butch Evans wrote:


On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote:

For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going 
beyond topic debate to personal attacks -- so I will restate my



If you are referring to my comment, you are missing the point.  I am 
not, in any way, attacking you personally.  I am simply saying that 
you are overstating what I see others saying.  If you take it 
personally, you should re-read what I posted.


Read the following article and tell me what you think 
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_ 
their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full



I'm not certain what you want to know.  Personally (and this is 
probably not a popular opinion here), I think that if the network 
operator has the ability to offer a premium network service, they 
should be allowed to do that.  I believe that I, as a network 
operator, should be allowed the same freedom.  At the same time, I 
think that there should be NO PUBLIC MONEY involved in the pool here.


Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the 
following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the 
prioritization and/or discrimination (or blocking taken to the



Prioritization of X is NOT discrimination of not X.  THAT is the 
point I was making before.  No matter how many times you say it, or 
how many ways you put it, it does not change a simple fact.



Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets?  If you think



Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination.  For instance, I block 
LOTS of traffic.  I block ALL traffic to and from known hacker 
havens.  I do not accept mail from certain servers.  I only allow 
certain volumes of P2P traffic to flow over my network.  These things 
enhance my service for my subscribers.  I have a few customers who 
have opted to move on to other ISPs as a result of these decisions.  
That is their choice, and in the end, it benefits my remaining subs 
all the more.  The fact is, there has been customer movement in both 
directions.  I have moved several customer ONTO my network for the 
same reason others have left.


about it, prioritizing certain my preferred packets across my 
physical network is really no different than discriminating 
(depreferencing or blocking) my competitors -- in fact, the Network 
Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would argue that allowing certain 
providers to pay for prioritized / privilege access is



Ok..now it's time for a personal attack.  Those guys are KOOKS.

The topic of debate that I am addressing is the argument between 
it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network so I can do whatever I want vs. the Internet 
is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality).



I have no problem with this debate.  I think it is a silly debate, but 
there are others who will argue this till they are blue in the face.  
I don't have time to do that, so I will most likely bow out and watch 
from afar, as I have been doing.


SBC started it, now BellSouth is getting into the act. Two articles 
(1, 2) highlight comments made by William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth, 
about how he'd really like to be able to charge internet companies 
for priority access to his network and customers.



While I believe SBC (and BS -- Is it just me, or does THIS 
abbreviation belong with ALL the RBOCs?) would be shooting themselves 
in the foot, they ought to be free to attempt to do this. Again, they 
should be held accountable for what they have built with PUBLIC MONEY.



Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



KOOKS!  I can only agree with about 25% of what they say.  Even that 
is a liberal guess.  Here are my retorts to the KOOK statements.


1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of 
their choice;



Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide 
which network operator offers them the best bang for their buck.


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



Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide
which network operator offers them the best bang for their buck.

3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices 
that do not harm the network; and



Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide
which network operator