Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take

2007-03-04 Thread Tim Wolfe
After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not have a 
clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?)




wispa wrote:
You can take his views however you wish...  But NN legislation is probably on 
the way, and this could get real ugly...REAL ugly real fast.  When DC takes 
on a problem, whether or not it really exists, it turns political 
instantly, and we could be the ones that get whipsawed. 


http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070228-075046-2287r.htm





Mark Koskenmaki   Neofast, Inc
Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains
541-969-8200

  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take

2007-03-04 Thread wispa
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote
 After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not 
 have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?)

Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who doesn't 
advocate NN in any and every form is owned by the telcos.  That's a 
complete disservice to the debate and to yourself. 

He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM.  Nobody that I 
know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer wants it done), 
or content.  

Some providers don't offer VOIP support.  I don't particularly, either, as my 
network isn't optimized by any QOS implementation. 

However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world of DC, he 
thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way to manage 
political speech.  Free speech advocates are already quite upset about the 
FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles during election season to 
avoid compaign reform law entanglements. 

In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow routinely out 
of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust in regulators to not 
encroach on our most fundamental freedoms. 

If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become non-neutral in 
regards to who and what people did... I don't think the sky would fall.  On 
the contrary, I could raise my rates and get a whole new market. 

As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast, Inc, have a 
REAL right to every site, service, or use possible, that should depend on 
the agreement I make with my customers, should it not?

I've been tempted to offer a web only service, appropriately priced, that 
blocks EVERYTHING but http and dns. 

Would that be legal under NN laws?   If the answer is No, then perhaps we 
should rethink what we really want.  I say that a lack of neutrality by other 
providers is opportunity for me, not a negative.  And that as much as a 
subscription to your local newspaper doesn't give you the right have every 
news  story, columnist, and cartoon delivered to your door, nor does 
subscribing to a tiered internet service. 

What do you think?



Mark Koskenmaki   Neofast, Inc
Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains
541-969-8200

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take

2007-03-04 Thread John Scrivner

Mark your calendars folks, me and Mark K are in agreement for once.

Those who support Net Neutrality without exception have never had to 
track, isolate and repair infected PCs spewing out spam or replicative 
exploits to the masses. We should have a right to decide what we allow 
on our networks and to implement controls ourselves if needed in order 
to make sure our networks function optimally. Regulators forcing us to 
offer an open road to all data traffic is not a good thing for a 
provider of broadband networking services who is also trying to offer a 
good value for the money and manage network resources for optimal 
performance. But hey, if the world wants blind NN then so be it, give us 
all $300 per month per connection in Universal Service fees and we can 
offer a no limits connection to every person who connects. Let all the 
bits roll huh?


I have previously tried to push for a re-definition of the issue. 
Forcing Net Neutrality is something almost nobody can benefit from in 
all instances. I believe a better approach is for the broadband industry 
to agree to a First do no harm mission statement. What this would mean 
is that we all agree on our honor that we will not do things to data 
traffic which limit competition, reduce legitimate services to 
customers, remove open access to thoughts, ideas, political voices, 
etc., or otherwise force people to pay more for anything that should be 
easily accessible with minimal network loading in an open access network 
connection.


In its most basic application the First do no harm mission could be 
illustrated in this example involving VOIP:


If I offer VOIP to my customers as a service that I manage and sell 
through my company and I want optimum quality of service for this then I 
can prioritize my VOIP service packets to a higher level than average 
traffic but I cannot set a competitor's VOIP packets to run at a lower 
QoS level than average traffic nor can I block competitors VOIP traffic. 
In short I should be able to optimize my network to allow my services to 
run optimally or to sell the rights for others to optimize their traffic 
to run at a higher priority but I cannot set traffic patterns to harm 
another provider's packets to run at a lower than average priority or to 
be blocked from passing at all.


Here is another example of First do no harm

If a customer PC is infected with a virus and is generating spam and 
sending viruses to other PCs then we should be able to remove this 
computer from network service or filter this traffic at our discretion. 
This goes against Net Neutrality but fits easily into the First do no 
harm mission.


I would be glad to debate why a First do no harm mission would be a 
better direction than Net Neutrality for broadband policy directives. 
This might be a good way to head off the Net Neutrality issue from being 
used against us in regulatory issues. If broadband providers as a whole 
would adopt a directive which would eliminate any Net Neutrality 
concerns then it would be more difficult for those pushing for Net 
Neutrality to argue their stance.

Scriv


wispa wrote:


On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote
 

After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not 
have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?)
   



Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who doesn't 
advocate NN in any and every form is owned by the telcos.  That's a 
complete disservice to the debate and to yourself. 

He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM.  Nobody that I 
know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer wants it done), 
or content.  

Some providers don't offer VOIP support.  I don't particularly, either, as my 
network isn't optimized by any QOS implementation. 

However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world of DC, he 
thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way to manage 
political speech.  Free speech advocates are already quite upset about the 
FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles during election season to 
avoid compaign reform law entanglements. 

In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow routinely out 
of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust in regulators to not 
encroach on our most fundamental freedoms. 

If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become non-neutral in 
regards to who and what people did... I don't think the sky would fall.  On 
the contrary, I could raise my rates and get a whole new market. 

As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast, Inc, have a 
REAL right to every site, service, or use possible, that should depend on 
the agreement I make with my customers, should it not?


I've been tempted to offer a web only service, appropriately priced, that 
blocks EVERYTHING but http and dns. 

Would that be legal under NN laws?   If the answer is No, then perhaps we 
should rethink 

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take

2007-03-04 Thread George Rogato

http://ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/index.html

If anyone is really interested in what the big boys have to say and how 
each side looks at things.


I watched this last weekend, was interesting.

George

John Scrivner wrote:

Mark your calendars folks, me and Mark K are in agreement for once.

Those who support Net Neutrality without exception have never had to 
track, isolate and repair infected PCs spewing out spam or replicative 
exploits to the masses. We should have a right to decide what we allow 
on our networks and to implement controls ourselves if needed in order 
to make sure our networks function optimally. Regulators forcing us to 
offer an open road to all data traffic is not a good thing for a 
provider of broadband networking services who is also trying to offer a 
good value for the money and manage network resources for optimal 
performance. But hey, if the world wants blind NN then so be it, give us 
all $300 per month per connection in Universal Service fees and we can 
offer a no limits connection to every person who connects. Let all the 
bits roll huh?


I have previously tried to push for a re-definition of the issue. 
Forcing Net Neutrality is something almost nobody can benefit from in 
all instances. I believe a better approach is for the broadband industry 
to agree to a First do no harm mission statement. What this would mean 
is that we all agree on our honor that we will not do things to data 
traffic which limit competition, reduce legitimate services to 
customers, remove open access to thoughts, ideas, political voices, 
etc., or otherwise force people to pay more for anything that should be 
easily accessible with minimal network loading in an open access network 
connection.


In its most basic application the First do no harm mission could be 
illustrated in this example involving VOIP:


If I offer VOIP to my customers as a service that I manage and sell 
through my company and I want optimum quality of service for this then I 
can prioritize my VOIP service packets to a higher level than average 
traffic but I cannot set a competitor's VOIP packets to run at a lower 
QoS level than average traffic nor can I block competitors VOIP traffic. 
In short I should be able to optimize my network to allow my services to 
run optimally or to sell the rights for others to optimize their traffic 
to run at a higher priority but I cannot set traffic patterns to harm 
another provider's packets to run at a lower than average priority or to 
be blocked from passing at all.


Here is another example of First do no harm

If a customer PC is infected with a virus and is generating spam and 
sending viruses to other PCs then we should be able to remove this 
computer from network service or filter this traffic at our discretion. 
This goes against Net Neutrality but fits easily into the First do no 
harm mission.


I would be glad to debate why a First do no harm mission would be a 
better direction than Net Neutrality for broadband policy directives. 
This might be a good way to head off the Net Neutrality issue from being 
used against us in regulatory issues. If broadband providers as a whole 
would adopt a directive which would eliminate any Net Neutrality 
concerns then it would be more difficult for those pushing for Net 
Neutrality to argue their stance.

Scriv


wispa wrote:


On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote
 

After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not have 
a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?)
  



Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who 
doesn't advocate NN in any and every form is owned by the telcos.  
That's a complete disservice to the debate and to yourself.
He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM.  Nobody 
that I know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer 
wants it done), or content. 
Some providers don't offer VOIP support.  I don't particularly, 
either, as my network isn't optimized by any QOS implementation.
However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world of 
DC, he thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way to 
manage political speech.  Free speech advocates are already quite 
upset about the FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles 
during election season to avoid compaign reform law entanglements.
In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow 
routinely out of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust in 
regulators to not encroach on our most fundamental freedoms.
If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become 
non-neutral in regards to who and what people did... I don't think the 
sky would fall.  On the contrary, I could raise my rates and get a 
whole new market.
As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast, Inc, have a 
REAL right to every site, service, or use possible, that should 
depend on the agreement I make with my customers, 

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take

2007-03-04 Thread George Rogato

Panel 3 might get to the point quicker.
It's titled:
 Discrimination, Blockage, and Vertical Integration


George Rogato wrote:

http://ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/index.html

If anyone is really interested in what the big boys have to say and how 
each side looks at things.


I watched this last weekend, was interesting.

George

John Scrivner wrote:


Mark your calendars folks, me and Mark K are in agreement for once.

Those who support Net Neutrality without exception have never had to 
track, isolate and repair infected PCs spewing out spam or replicative 
exploits to the masses. We should have a right to decide what we 
allow on our networks and to implement controls ourselves if needed in 
order to make sure our networks function optimally. Regulators forcing 
us to offer an open road to all data traffic is not a good thing for a 
provider of broadband networking services who is also trying to offer 
a good value for the money and manage network resources for optimal 
performance. But hey, if the world wants blind NN then so be it, give 
us all $300 per month per connection in Universal Service fees and we 
can offer a no limits connection to every person who connects. Let 
all the bits roll huh?


I have previously tried to push for a re-definition of the issue. 
Forcing Net Neutrality is something almost nobody can benefit from 
in all instances. I believe a better approach is for the broadband 
industry to agree to a First do no harm mission statement. What this 
would mean is that we all agree on our honor that we will not do 
things to data traffic which limit competition, reduce legitimate 
services to customers, remove open access to thoughts, ideas, 
political voices, etc., or otherwise force people to pay more for 
anything that should be easily accessible with minimal network loading 
in an open access network connection.


In its most basic application the First do no harm mission could be 
illustrated in this example involving VOIP:


If I offer VOIP to my customers as a service that I manage and sell 
through my company and I want optimum quality of service for this then 
I can prioritize my VOIP service packets to a higher level than 
average traffic but I cannot set a competitor's VOIP packets to run at 
a lower QoS level than average traffic nor can I block competitors 
VOIP traffic. In short I should be able to optimize my network to 
allow my services to run optimally or to sell the rights for others to 
optimize their traffic to run at a higher priority but I cannot set 
traffic patterns to harm another provider's packets to run at a lower 
than average priority or to be blocked from passing at all.


Here is another example of First do no harm

If a customer PC is infected with a virus and is generating spam and 
sending viruses to other PCs then we should be able to remove this 
computer from network service or filter this traffic at our 
discretion. This goes against Net Neutrality but fits easily into the 
First do no harm mission.


I would be glad to debate why a First do no harm mission would be a 
better direction than Net Neutrality for broadband policy directives. 
This might be a good way to head off the Net Neutrality issue from 
being used against us in regulatory issues. If broadband providers as 
a whole would adopt a directive which would eliminate any Net 
Neutrality concerns then it would be more difficult for those pushing 
for Net Neutrality to argue their stance.

Scriv


wispa wrote:


On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote
 

After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not 
have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?)
  




Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who 
doesn't advocate NN in any and every form is owned by the telcos.  
That's a complete disservice to the debate and to yourself.
He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM.  Nobody 
that I know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer 
wants it done), or content. Some providers don't offer VOIP support.  
I don't particularly, either, as my network isn't optimized by any 
QOS implementation.
However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world 
of DC, he thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way 
to manage political speech.  Free speech advocates are already quite 
upset about the FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles 
during election season to avoid compaign reform law entanglements.
In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow 
routinely out of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust 
in regulators to not encroach on our most fundamental freedoms.
If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become 
non-neutral in regards to who and what people did... I don't think 
the sky would fall.  On the contrary, I could raise my rates and get 
a whole new market.
As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast, 

[WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take

2007-03-03 Thread wispa

You can take his views however you wish...  But NN legislation is probably on 
the way, and this could get real ugly...REAL ugly real fast.  When DC takes 
on a problem, whether or not it really exists, it turns political 
instantly, and we could be the ones that get whipsawed. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070228-075046-2287r.htm





Mark Koskenmaki   Neofast, Inc
Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains
541-969-8200

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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