Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality bandwidth providers

[Garrett Shankle]

 High PPS with small packet size and inefficient wireless frame use. Although 
frame aggregation resolves this for the most part. Or if you are running a high 
over-subscription ratio and can't handle the continuous traffic it generates. 
We were troubled by it at one point but those days are long gone.


  Nothing has really changed on that front, wireless providers were always 
allowed "legitimate means" to implement QoS. How that was interpreted is beyond 
me.



  And it won't be simple to target torrent traffic in particular with the 
modern techniques that mask torrent traffic as standard web traffic. Not to 
mention that legitimate systems now use torrent traffic to deliver updates. 
That's a real can of worms to open up now.



 In my opinion it's not our concern what customers do with their bandwidth 
until someone with a badge or a gavel says otherwise.


We give our customers the internet, the whole internet, and nothing but the 
internet.


Garrett Shankle

Wireless Administrator

Virginia Broadband LLC





From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org <wireless-boun...@wispa.org> on behalf of 
Adair Winter <ada...@amarillowireless.net>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:23:53 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality  bandwidth providers

Torrent traffic is less than 1% of our network traffic. It's never been a big 
deal for us like it probably once was.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Dan Thompson 
<d...@peakenetbroadband.com<mailto:d...@peakenetbroadband.com>> wrote:
Why do you want to be able to throttle torrent users specifically?


 On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 12:04:43 -0500 
r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net> wrote 

I want to be able to throttle torrent users. Beyond that, I don't think it will 
affect us much in areas of high-competition.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] On 
Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
> What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being
> over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and
> DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this
> will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend
> on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger
> picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will
> raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access.


Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't suddenly 
become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some crap until 
someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not.

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




--

Adair Winter
VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071
C: 806.231.7180
http://www.amarillowireless.net<http://www.amarillowireless.net/>
[https://docs.google.com/a/amarillowireless.net/uc?id=0B-KeaiwIRBHEQl9leFFvVjZuWmc=download]<http://www.amarillowireless.net>


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Rory Conaway]

It’s the DCMA notices. CenturyLink and Cox are clamping down on that.  Hotels 
are our biggest issue.

Rory

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Kris McElroy
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:04 AM
To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

I would agree with Adair, Torrent is a non-issue for us.  We have seen more 
complaints from Windows Update and Xbox Live Updates impacting customers 
connections, meaning they call in and say “I am paying for 20 Meg service and 
when I run a speed test I am only seeing 2 Meg Down or wny is my Netflix 
buffering”.  We go and look and they will have a windows update running in the 
background taking 18-19 Meg of their connection up and you have to explain that 
to them, same way with Xbox accept all our gamers have our 50 Meg plan and it 
will chew up 30 to 40 Meg downloading an update or game.  Luckily, we can 
manage this with our Procera now so we don’t hear from customers as much.

Kris McElroy



From: <wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>> on behalf 
of Mike Hammett <wispawirel...@ics-il.net<mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net>>
Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Date: Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM
To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

Fair how?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[mage removed by 
sender.]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[mage 
removed by 
sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[mage removed by 
sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

From: "Vance Shipley" <van...@sigscale.com<mailto:van...@sigscale.com>>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:43:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
Because it's the fair thing to do. As a neighbour I would greatly appreciate it.

On Dec 15, 2017 21:05, "Mike Hammett" 
<wispawirel...@ics-il.net<mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
Why?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[mage removed by 
sender.]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[mage 
removed by 
sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[mage removed by 
sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:04:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

I want to be able to throttle torrent users.  Beyond that, I don't think it 
will affect us much in areas of high-competition.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] On 
Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
> What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being
> over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and
> DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this
>

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality bandwidth providers

[Jared Brown]

Life isn't fair and you are not entitled to your oversubscription ratios. 

 

I'm fine with lower cost plans that have higher contention during peak hours, as long as it's clearly and fairly disclosed. 

 

I'm not fine with plans being advertised as XX Mbps, flatrate and no data caps and then not delivering. A consumer should have a reasonable expectation of getting about XX Mbps, even during peak hours, if they subscribe to a XX Mbps plan. As such, the consumer using what they paid for is in no way any form of abuse. 

 

Jared

 

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 at 8:35 PM
From: "Darin Steffl" <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality  bandwidth providers


Dan,
 

You have to understand if you're selling a residential internet package, it is NOT dedicated. There has to be some oversubscription allowed for the ISP to make a profit. If every sub we had used their plan 24/7 and expected the speed to always be there and not dip down, we wouldn't make money and would shutdown.

 

So yes, it is wrong and hurts an ISP if customers use and expect to max out their connection all the time but specifically during the evening peak. That's where it matters most.

 

If customers always want their bandwidth then they need to pay more to upgrade backhaul, ap's, etc. If they're OK with slightly slower speeds during peak but enough to still stream and not feel slow, then prices can remain level. 

 

Power companies issue peak time alerts during the summer and winter to prevent brownouts or congestion in our terms. And they specifically state in their newsletter that if people don't reduce their power demands during their peak times, rates are going to increase as it costs more to handle that load. 


 
On Dec 15, 2017 12:07 PM, "Vance Shipley" <van...@sigscale.com> wrote:




On Dec 15, 2017 23:29, "Dan Thompson" <d...@peakenetbroadband.com> wrote:



How is using what you pay for abuse?  In both instances described, the customer is using a large chunk of their bandwidth, but not using more than the plan alots. 





 

Fallacy. Imagine your local "all you can eat" buffet  charges $10 for lunch which you really enjoy and find good value. One day a Sumo wrestling school opens next door and the new customers eat them out every hour. Next week lunch is $20 but you're eating the same thing. 

 

You are not paying equally when you are part of the top percentile of bandwidth consumers.

 

 


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 


___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




 

 
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality bandwidth providers

[Jared Brown]

I counter your claims of fallacy with my own claim of bad analogy. The restaurant business is nothing like the ISP business, where critical inputs have lower and lower unit costs each year, the seller sets the rate of service and consumption has well know diurnal usage patterns. 

 

However, what we have here is purely a business model problem, not a consumer over usage problem. Even the heaviest of consumers are only using the service as advertised. If you can't deal with that, don't use terms like "flatrate", "X Mbps", "no data caps", etc. in your marketing and service plans. 

 

As as they say, live by the sword, die by the sword. 

 

Jared

 


Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 at 8:07 PM
From: "Vance Shipley" <van...@sigscale.com>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality  bandwidth providers




On Dec 15, 2017 23:29, "Dan Thompson" <d...@peakenetbroadband.com> wrote:


How is using what you pay for abuse?  In both instances described, the customer is using a large chunk of their bandwidth, but not using more than the plan alots. 




 

Fallacy. Imagine your local "all you can eat" buffet  charges $10 for lunch which you really enjoy and find good value. One day a Sumo wrestling school opens next door and the new customers eat them out every hour. Next week lunch is $20 but you're eating the same thing. 

 

You are not paying equally when you are part of the top percentile of bandwidth consumers.

 

 

___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




 


 

 
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality bandwidth providers

[Darin Steffl]

Dan,

You have to understand if you're selling a residential internet package, it
is NOT dedicated. There has to be some oversubscription allowed for the ISP
to make a profit. If every sub we had used their plan 24/7 and expected the
speed to always be there and not dip down, we wouldn't make money and would
shutdown.

So yes, it is wrong and hurts an ISP if customers use and expect to max out
their connection all the time but specifically during the evening peak.
That's where it matters most.

If customers always want their bandwidth then they need to pay more to
upgrade backhaul, ap's, etc. If they're OK with slightly slower speeds
during peak but enough to still stream and not feel slow, then prices can
remain level.

Power companies issue peak time alerts during the summer and winter to
prevent brownouts or congestion in our terms. And they specifically state
in their newsletter that if people don't reduce their power demands during
their peak times, rates are going to increase as it costs more to handle
that load.

On Dec 15, 2017 12:07 PM, "Vance Shipley"  wrote:

> On Dec 15, 2017 23:29, "Dan Thompson"  wrote:
>
> How is using what you pay for abuse?  In both instances described, the
> customer is using a large chunk of their bandwidth, but not using more than
> the plan alots.
>
>
> Fallacy. Imagine your local "all you can eat" buffet  charges $10 for
> lunch which you really enjoy and find good value. One day a Sumo wrestling
> school opens next door and the new customers eat them out every hour. Next
> week lunch is $20 but you're eating the same thing.
>
> You are not paying equally when you are part of the top percentile of
> bandwidth consumers.
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Josh Luthman]

Lucky you!!!


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 12/15/17 09:40, Josh Luthman wrote:
> > Do you not have a DMCA contact?  I get these things daily and I have a
> > pretty small customer count with a geographic that I would suspect is
> > minimally using Bittorrent.
> >
>
>
> Not daily, no. Maybe once or twice a month for me.
>
> ~Seth
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Seth Mattinen]

On 12/15/17 09:40, Josh Luthman wrote:
> Do you not have a DMCA contact?  I get these things daily and I have a 
> pretty small customer count with a geographic that I would suspect is 
> minimally using Bittorrent.
> 


Not daily, no. Maybe once or twice a month for me.

~Seth
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality bandwidth providers

[Vance Shipley]

On Dec 15, 2017 23:29, "Dan Thompson"  wrote:

How is using what you pay for abuse?  In both instances described, the
customer is using a large chunk of their bandwidth, but not using more than
the plan alots.


Fallacy. Imagine your local "all you can eat" buffet  charges $10 for lunch
which you really enjoy and find good value. One day a Sumo wrestling school
opens next door and the new customers eat them out every hour. Next week
lunch is $20 but you're eating the same thing.

You are not paying equally when you are part of the top percentile of
bandwidth consumers.
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Tim Cailloux]

I talked to a reporter on Net Neutrality yesterday, and this is one of
the things I highlighted, as a scenario in which an ISP could help
customers after Title II no longer applied.  Like, "I know your Internet
stinks right now; it's your XBox updates and your Windows updates, and
that's the reason you can't stream Netflix.  I can't manage traffic
priorities during peak hours for you."
I had a customer call for support because their PS4 was uploading and
saturating their upstream.  We ended the call with all electronics in
his house in a pile in the living room to prove that it was one of his
devices and not my service.
tim
 
--
Tim Cailloux
t...@southern-internet.com
(404) 406-9911


On Fri, Dec 15, 2017, at 12:55, Vance Shipley wrote:
> Good story. This is the stuff that people don't understand. Policy
> enforcement is good for everyone, including the enforcee! Net
> neutrality, as imagined by it's staunch supporters, is a really bad
> idea. They imagine it's about "big corporate" stifling competition and
> innovation but the very real everyday impact of real "neutrality"
> would be normal people suffering poor service so the geeky few could
> pay less for their consumption and no back pressure on abuse.> 
> 
> On Dec 15, 2017 21:34, "Kris McElroy"
> <kmcel...@threesixtycomm.net> wrote:>> I would agree with Adair, Torrent is a 
> non-issue for us.  We have
>> seen more complaints from Windows Update and Xbox Live Updates
>> impacting customers connections, meaning they call in and say “I am
>> paying for 20 Meg service and when I run a speed test I am only
>> seeing 2 Meg Down or wny is my Netflix buffering”.  We go and look
>> and they will have a windows update running in the background taking
>> 18-19 Meg of their connection up and you have to explain that to
>> them, same way with Xbox accept all our gamers have our 50 Meg plan
>> and it will chew up 30 to 40 Meg downloading an update or game.
>> Luckily, we can manage this with our Procera now so we don’t hear
>> from customers as much.>> __ __


>> Kris McElroy


>> __ __


>> __ __


>> __ __


>> *From: *<wireless-boun...@wispa.org> on behalf of Mike Hammett 
>> <wispawireless@ics-
>> il.net> *Reply-To: *WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> *Date:
>> *Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM *To: *WISPA General List
>> <wireless@wispa.org> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality &
>> bandwidth providers>> __ __


>> Fair how?


>>
>>
>> -
>>  Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions[1] mage removed by
>>  sender.mage removed by sender.mage removed by sender.mage removed by
>>  sender. Midwest Internet Exchange[2] mage removed by sender.mage
>>  removed by sender.mage removed by sender. The Brothers WISP[3] mage
>>  removed by sender.mage removed by sender.>> 
>> *From: *"Vance Shipley" <van...@sigscale.com> *To: *"WISPA General
>> List" <wireless@wispa.org> *Sent: *Friday, December 15, 2017 9:43:31
>> AM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers>> Because 
>> it's the fair thing to do. As a neighbour I would greatly
>> appreciate it.>> __ __


>> On Dec 15, 2017 21:05, "Mike Hammett" <wispawirel...@ics-il.net>
>> wrote:>>> Why?


>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>>  Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions[4] mage removed by
>>>  sender.mage removed by sender.mage removed by sender.mage removed
>>>  by sender. Midwest Internet Exchange[5] mage removed by sender.mage
>>>  removed by sender.mage removed by sender. The Brothers WISP[6] mage
>>>  removed by sender.mage removed by sender.>>> 
>>> *From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> *To: *"WISPA General
>>> List" <wireless@wispa.org> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 13, 2017
>>> 11:04:43 AM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth
>>> providers
>>>
>>>  I want to be able to throttle torrent users.  Beyond that, I don't
>>>  think it will affect us much in areas of high-competition.
>>>
>>>  Rory
>>>
>>>  -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
>>> [mailto:wireless-
>>>  boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen Sent: Tuesday,
>>>  December 12, 2017 6:57 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re:
>>>  [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>>>
>>>  On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
>>>  > What are the 

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality bandwidth providers

[Dan Thompson]

How is using what you pay for abuse?  In both instances described, the customer 
is using a large chunk of their bandwidth, but not using more than the plan 
alots.  

 On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:55:10 -0500 van...@sigscale.com wrote 

Good story. This is the stuff that people don't understand. Policy enforcement 
is good for everyone, including the enforcee! Net neutrality, as imagined by 
it's staunch supporters, is a really bad idea. They imagine it's about "big 
corporate" stifling competition and innovation but the very real everyday 
impact of real "neutrality" would be normal people suffering poor service so 
the geeky few could pay less for their consumption and no back pressure on 
abuse.


On Dec 15, 2017 21:34, "Kris McElroy" <kmcel...@threesixtycomm.net> wrote:
I would agree with Adair, Torrent is a non-issue for us.  We have seen more 
complaints from Windows Update and Xbox Live Updates impacting customers 
connections, meaning they call in and say “I am paying for 20 Meg service and 
when I run a speed test I am only seeing 2 Meg Down or wny is my Netflix 
buffering”.  We go and look and they will have a windows update running in the 
background taking 18-19 Meg of their connection up and you have to explain that 
to them, same way with Xbox accept all our gamers have our 50 Meg plan and it 
will chew up 30 to 40 Meg downloading an update or game.  Luckily, we can 
manage this with our Procera now so we don’t hear from customers as much.

 

Kris McElroy

 

 

 

From: <wireless-boun...@wispa.org> on behalf of Mike Hammett 
<wispawirel...@ics-il.net>
Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
Date: Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM
To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

 

Fair how?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP


From: "Vance Shipley" <van...@sigscale.com>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:43:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

Because it's the fair thing to do. As a neighbour I would greatly appreciate it.

 

On Dec 15, 2017 21:05, "Mike Hammett" <wispawirel...@ics-il.net> wrote:

Why?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP


From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:04:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

I want to be able to throttle torrent users.  Beyond that, I don't think it 
will affect us much in areas of high-competition.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
> What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being 
> over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and 
> DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this 
> will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend 
> on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger 
> picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will 
> raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access.


Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't suddenly 
become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some crap until 
someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not.

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Vance Shipley]

Good story. This is the stuff that people don't understand. Policy
enforcement is good for everyone, including the enforcee! Net neutrality,
as imagined by it's staunch supporters, is a really bad idea. They imagine
it's about "big corporate" stifling competition and innovation but the very
real everyday impact of real "neutrality" would be normal people suffering
poor service so the geeky few could pay less for their consumption and no
back pressure on abuse.


On Dec 15, 2017 21:34, "Kris McElroy" <kmcel...@threesixtycomm.net> wrote:

> I would agree with Adair, Torrent is a non-issue for us.  We have seen
> more complaints from Windows Update and Xbox Live Updates impacting
> customers connections, meaning they call in and say “I am paying for 20 Meg
> service and when I run a speed test I am only seeing 2 Meg Down or wny is
> my Netflix buffering”.  We go and look and they will have a windows update
> running in the background taking 18-19 Meg of their connection up and you
> have to explain that to them, same way with Xbox accept all our gamers have
> our 50 Meg plan and it will chew up 30 to 40 Meg downloading an update or
> game.  Luckily, we can manage this with our Procera now so we don’t hear
> from customers as much.
>
>
>
> Kris McElroy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<wireless-boun...@wispa.org> on behalf of Mike Hammett <
> wispawirel...@ics-il.net>
> *Reply-To: *WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
> *Date: *Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM
> *To: *WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>
>
>
> Fair how?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> [image: mage removed by sender.] <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[image:
> mage removed by sender.]
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[image:
> mage removed by sender.]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[image:
> mage removed by sender.] <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> [image: mage removed by sender.] <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[image:
> mage removed by sender.]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[image: mage
> removed by sender.] <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> [image: mage removed by sender.]
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[image: mage removed by sender.]
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
>
> *From: *"Vance Shipley" <van...@sigscale.com>
> *To: *"WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> *Sent: *Friday, December 15, 2017 9:43:31 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>
> Because it's the fair thing to do. As a neighbour I would greatly
> appreciate it.
>
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2017 21:05, "Mike Hammett" <wispawirel...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>
> Why?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> [image: mage removed by sender.] <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[image:
> mage removed by sender.]
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[image:
> mage removed by sender.]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[image:
> mage removed by sender.] <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> [image: mage removed by sender.] <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[image:
> mage removed by sender.]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[image: mage
> removed by sender.] <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> [image: mage removed by sender.]
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[image: mage removed by sender.]
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
>
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
> *To: *"WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:04:43 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>
> I want to be able to throttle torrent users.  Beyond that, I don't think
> it will affect us much in areas of high-competition.
>
> Rory
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] O

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Josh Luthman]

Do you not have a DMCA contact?  I get these things daily and I have a
pretty small customer count with a geographic that I would suspect is
minimally using Bittorrent.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 12/13/17 9:04 AM, Rory Conaway wrote:
> > I want to be able to throttle torrent users.  Beyond that, I don't think
> it will affect us much in areas of high-competition.
>
>
> I don't really see torrents as a major thing anymore, not like what it
> used to be anyway.
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Seth Mattinen]

On 12/13/17 9:04 AM, Rory Conaway wrote:
> I want to be able to throttle torrent users.  Beyond that, I don't think it 
> will affect us much in areas of high-competition.


I don't really see torrents as a major thing anymore, not like what it 
used to be anyway.
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Kris McElroy]

I would agree with Adair, Torrent is a non-issue for us.  We have seen more 
complaints from Windows Update and Xbox Live Updates impacting customers 
connections, meaning they call in and say “I am paying for 20 Meg service and 
when I run a speed test I am only seeing 2 Meg Down or wny is my Netflix 
buffering”.  We go and look and they will have a windows update running in the 
background taking 18-19 Meg of their connection up and you have to explain that 
to them, same way with Xbox accept all our gamers have our 50 Meg plan and it 
will chew up 30 to 40 Meg downloading an update or game.  Luckily, we can 
manage this with our Procera now so we don’t hear from customers as much.

Kris McElroy



From: <wireless-boun...@wispa.org> on behalf of Mike Hammett 
<wispawirel...@ics-il.net>
Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
Date: Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM
To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

Fair how?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[mage removed by 
sender.]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[mage 
removed by 
sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[mage removed by 
sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

From: "Vance Shipley" <van...@sigscale.com>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:43:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
Because it's the fair thing to do. As a neighbour I would greatly appreciate it.

On Dec 15, 2017 21:05, "Mike Hammett" 
<wispawirel...@ics-il.net<mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
Why?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[mage removed by 
sender.]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[mage 
removed by 
sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[mage removed by 
sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[mage removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[mage 
removed by sender.]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
____________
From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:04:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

I want to be able to throttle torrent users.  Beyond that, I don't think it 
will affect us much in areas of high-competition.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] On 
Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
> What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being
> over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and
> DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this
> will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend
> on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger
> picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will
> raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access.


Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't suddenly 
become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some crap until 
someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not.

___
Wireless 

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Mike Hammett]

Fair how? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Vance Shipley" <van...@sigscale.com> 
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:43:31 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers 


Because it's the fair thing to do. As a neighbour I would greatly appreciate 
it. 


On Dec 15, 2017 21:05, "Mike Hammett" < wispawirel...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Why? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 



From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > 
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:04:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers 

I want to be able to throttle torrent users. Beyond that, I don't think it will 
affect us much in areas of high-competition. 

Rory 

-Original Message- 
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: wireless-boun...@wispa.org ] On 
Behalf Of Seth Mattinen 
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM 
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers 

On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote: 
> What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being 
> over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and 
> DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this 
> will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend 
> on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger 
> picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will 
> raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access. 


Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't suddenly 
become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some crap until 
someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not. 

___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 


___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 




___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Adair Winter]

we see very little DMCA notices anymore. Maybe 2-4 a month. of those that
come it they seem to be from people using Kodi to "stream" and they have no
idea what is actually happening in the background.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
wrote:

> Damn DMCA notices!
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Dec 15, 2017 10:34 AM, "Mike Hammett" <wispawirel...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>
>> Why?
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> --
>> *From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
>> *To: *"WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:04:43 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>>
>> I want to be able to throttle torrent users.  Beyond that, I don't think
>> it will affect us much in areas of high-competition.
>>
>> Rory
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM
>> To: wireless@wispa.org
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>>
>> On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
>> > What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being
>> > over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and
>> > DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this
>> > will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend
>> > on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger
>> > picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will
>> > raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access.
>>
>>
>> Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't
>> suddenly become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some
>> crap until someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not.
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>


-- 

Adair Winter
VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071
C: 806.231.7180
http://www.amarillowireless.net
<http://www.amarillowireless.net>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Vance Shipley]

Because it's the fair thing to do. As a neighbour I would greatly
appreciate it.

On Dec 15, 2017 21:05, "Mike Hammett" <wispawirel...@ics-il.net> wrote:

> Why?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
> *To: *"WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:04:43 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>
> I want to be able to throttle torrent users.  Beyond that, I don't think
> it will affect us much in areas of high-competition.
>
> Rory
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>
> On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
> > What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being
> > over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and
> > DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this
> > will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend
> > on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger
> > picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will
> > raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access.
>
>
> Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't suddenly
> become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some crap until
> someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not.
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Josh Luthman]

Damn DMCA notices!

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Dec 15, 2017 10:34 AM, "Mike Hammett" <wispawirel...@ics-il.net> wrote:

> Why?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
> *To: *"WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:04:43 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>
> I want to be able to throttle torrent users.  Beyond that, I don't think
> it will affect us much in areas of high-competition.
>
> Rory
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>
> On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
> > What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being
> > over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and
> > DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this
> > will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend
> > on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger
> > picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will
> > raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access.
>
>
> Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't suddenly
> become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some crap until
> someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not.
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Mike Hammett]

Why? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> 
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:04:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers 

I want to be able to throttle torrent users. Beyond that, I don't think it will 
affect us much in areas of high-competition. 

Rory 

-Original Message- 
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Seth Mattinen 
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM 
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers 

On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote: 
> What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being 
> over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and 
> DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this 
> will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend 
> on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger 
> picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will 
> raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access. 


Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't suddenly 
become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some crap until 
someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not. 

___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality bandwidth providers

[Adair Winter]

Torrent traffic is less than 1% of our network traffic. It's never been a
big deal for us like it probably once was.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Dan Thompson <d...@peakenetbroadband.com>
wrote:

> Why do you want to be able to throttle torrent users specifically?
>
>
>  On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 12:04:43 -0500 * r...@triadwireless.net
> <r...@triadwireless.net> * wrote 
>
> I want to be able to throttle torrent users. Beyond that, I don't think it
> will affect us much in areas of high-competition.
>
> Rory
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>
> On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
> > What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being
> > over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and
> > DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this
> > will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend
> > on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger
> > picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will
> > raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access.
>
>
> Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't suddenly
> become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some crap until
> someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not.
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>


-- 

Adair Winter
VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071
C: 806.231.7180
http://www.amarillowireless.net
<http://www.amarillowireless.net>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality bandwidth providers

[Dan Thompson]

Why do you want to be able to throttle torrent users specifically?

 On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 12:04:43 -0500 r...@triadwireless.net wrote 

I want to be able to throttle torrent users. Beyond that, I don't think it will 
affect us much in areas of high-competition. 

Rory 

-Original Message- 
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Seth Mattinen 
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM 
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers 

On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote: 
> What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being 
> over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and 
> DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this 
> will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend 
> on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger 
> picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will 
> raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access. 


Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't suddenly 
become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some crap until 
someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not. 

___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Rory Conaway]

I want to be able to throttle torrent users.  Beyond that, I don't think it 
will affect us much in areas of high-competition.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:57 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
> What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being 
> over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and 
> DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this 
> will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend 
> on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger 
> picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will 
> raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access.


Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't suddenly 
become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some crap until 
someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not.

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Seth Mattinen]

On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
> What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being 
> over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and 
> DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this 
> will have little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend 
> on changing our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger 
> picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will 
> raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access.


Nothing. It wasn't mayhem in the decades before 2015 and it won't 
suddenly become a problem now. The big guys are always going to try some 
crap until someone calls them on it, "net neutrality" or not.

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Chadwick Wachs]

That was part of my "assumption" but every time I make an assumption
I'm hoping to see a resurgence in smaller ISPs as a result of repealing net
neutrality.

On Dec 10, 2017 3:50 PM, "Mike Hammett" <wispawirel...@ics-il.net> wrote:

> Net Neutrality never applied to anything other than mass-market
> consumer-facing services.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ----------
> *From: *"Chadwick Wachs" <c...@auwireless.net>
> *To: *wireless@wispa.org
> *Sent: *Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:44:34 PM
> *Subject: *[WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers
>
> What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being over
> turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and DSL
> companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this will have
> little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend on changing
> our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger picture enough.
> Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will raise rates or
> charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access.
>
> How far reaching could this go? My hope was there is more competition in
> data centers for bandwidth so we won't see the games the last mile (cable &
> telco) providers might play with customers and content providers.
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Mike Hammett]

Net Neutrality never applied to anything other than mass-market consumer-facing 
services. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Chadwick Wachs" <c...@auwireless.net> 
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:44:34 PM 
Subject: [WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers 


What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being over 
turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and DSL companies 
may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this will have little impact 
on us and our customers (since we don't intend on changing our policies) but I 
may not be thinking about the bigger picture enough. Perhaps my bandwidth and 
upstream fiber providers will raise rates or charge premium fees for fast lanes 
to middle mile access. 


How far reaching could this go? My hope was there is more competition in data 
centers for bandwidth so we won't see the games the last mile (cable & telco) 
providers might play with customers and content providers. 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] Net neutrality & bandwidth providers

[Chadwick Wachs]

What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being over
turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and DSL
companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this will have
little impact on us and our customers (since we don't intend on changing
our policies) but I may not be thinking about the bigger picture enough.
Perhaps my bandwidth and upstream fiber providers will raise rates or
charge premium fees for fast lanes to middle mile access.

How far reaching could this go? My hope was there is more competition in
data centers for bandwidth so we won't see the games the last mile (cable &
telco) providers might play with customers and content providers.
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181)]

Very well written Joe.

As a company that’s NEVER given all you can eat for one low price I agree with 
you.  Those who cause costs to go up should pay for those costs.

Not taxpayer subsidies, not everyone paying higher costs than they should.  
Treat data like gas, tires, water, food, clothes etc. etc. etc.  Pay for what 
you use, not what your neighbor uses.

marlon


From: Joe Fiero 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:15 AM
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

I don’t comment all that often here, but very much pay attention to the voices 
of experience.  On Net Neutrality, I have plenty to say.  As with most of my 
FCC comments, what I filed 2 weeks ago with them went against the grain.  I am 
a purist who has been in telecom since I repaired my first CB radio for a 
neighbor at the age of 14.  I helped launch Metromedia’s cellular system in NY, 
 a company I was a part owner in was the first acquisition of Fleetcall in NY 
City.  Anyone as old as me would remember that Fleetcall became NexTel, and for 
the real youngsters, they were acquired by Sprint for what turned out to be a 
total write-off of $35 billion in December of 2004.  I have been using 
unlicensed radio to link communications sites since long before it went 
digital.  

 

One thing my experience and observations have taught me is that nothing 
promotes innovation like free market.  We need not look beyond our own industry 
to prove that.  When no one would service 40% of America, we collectively built 
an industry that matured into a recognized and respected market sector.   I was 
involved in the previous formation of an industry that is both parallel and 
intertwined with WISPS, that of home satellite television. 

 

Back in the mid 1970’s a band of tenacious, adventurous experimenters took 
handfuls of surplus junk and built home earth stations.  In short order we went 
from being pirates and thieves to an established medium to reach rural America. 
 It wasn’t long before the big money found us and pushed us out of the way.  We 
went from a place where we could make a respectable income to being lackeys for 
DirecTV and DISH who generously paid us a few dollars to do the job and then 
gave us a big residual of 50 cents to about two dollars, on subscribers that 
ARPU of $100 or more.

 

WISPs have been struggling to keep up with the Netflix demand since they went 
to Internet delivery in 2009.  Systems big and small quickly found their choke 
points.  And like in highway design, if you upgrade one intersection, the 
traffic jam just moves to the next unimproved intersection.  The problem is, 
unlike the highway department, we don’t run on tax revenue.  We have to charge 
subscribers for a service that is both fair and responsive to their needs.

 

The SPRINT concept in the article is the most fair and responsible way to 
assure that our infrastructure can meet the demand, and that those creating the 
demand are the ones paying for it.  The FCC needs to stop cow-towing to the 
illiterate public who are still touting that they need to “protect the FREE 
Internet”.  Who gets this for free?  If you are in a coffee shop, the 
proprietor is paying for it.  Public Wi-Fi is advertising or tax subsidized.  
Do we get power, water, heating for free?  

 

Ten years ago we projected a mass movement from the PSTN to VoIP.  Even the 
industry experts never predicted a loss of 48% of copper lines in 10 years.  
What was built up over a century dissipated in the blink of an eye.  We are 
again on the cusp of a shift in the paradigm that will see cable and satellite 
users shift to Internet based delivery on any device they desire.  The same 
dramatic reduction witnessed in copper phone lines awaits the traditional 
Multichannel marketplace.  And along with the big guns, we are on the front 
line.  We will be expected to deliver copious amounts of data to subscribers as 
they stream HD video and music to multiple devices in their homes and offices.  

 

We, the WISP industry, need to step up our game if we are going to remain part 
of this.  We are going to have to emulate the cellular industry with frequency 
reuse like we never imagined.  We are going to have to replace our older radios 
with ones that can deliver the required bandwidth, and our backhauls are going 
to need enough capacity to handle all this.  

 

But how do we justify the cost, who do we charge, and how do we do it?  The 
early agreement with Verizon and Netflix that received the FCC’s blessing was 
never going to benefit everyone.  How long would it take for you and I to get 
Netflix to pay for our “fast lane”?  My guess was never.  

 

Netflix, Hulu, and the like have created a business model where they have no 
cost to deliver a product to their users.  They are using the infrastructure 
built and paid for by others, then stirring up the ignorant masses to complain 
to the FCC about the free Internet.   I have learned

[WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Josh Luthman]

http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+DroidLife+%28Droid+Life%29utm_content=FaceBook

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Clay Stewart]

Or the beginning of new law suits
On Jul 31, 2014 10:38 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
wrote:


 http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+DroidLife+%28Droid+Life%29utm_content=FaceBook

 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Matt Hoppes]

Or the beginning of new business opportunities for smaller companies.

On 7/31/14, 11:07 AM, Clay Stewart wrote:
 Or the beginning of new law suits
 
 On Jul 31, 2014 10:38 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
 mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
 
 
 http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+DroidLife+%28Droid+Life%29utm_content=FaceBook
 
 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373
 
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Josh Luthman]

Oh it's great for business.  Terrible for free speech.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com
wrote:

 Or the beginning of new business opportunities for smaller companies.

 On 7/31/14, 11:07 AM, Clay Stewart wrote:
  Or the beginning of new law suits
 
  On Jul 31, 2014 10:38 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
  mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
 
 
 http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+DroidLife+%28Droid+Life%29utm_content=FaceBook
 
  Josh Luthman
  Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340
  Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343
  1100 Wayne St
  Suite 1337
  Troy, OH 45373
 
 
  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 
 
  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Joe Fiero]

 Luthman
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

 

http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/?utm_source=feedburner
 
http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+DroidLife+%28Droid+Life%29utm_content=FaceBook
 
utm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+DroidLife+%28Droid+Life%29utm_content=FaceBook

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Brian Webster]

I don’t see it as a beginning to an end, it’s an enhanced option for a low cost 
data plan. Ala Carte if you will, the consumer may just do a bulk of their data 
use on something like Facebook and minimally for other uses. Why pay for a 
whopping big data plan when you may not need it. Get a decent base price 
program and then bump up where you want it. This may work well for audio in the 
car. Should be cheaper than Satellite radio. Don’t vilify something like this, 
if it becomes more commonplace carriers on any type of network may be able to 
increase their ARPU for low data use customers by changing their billing model. 

 

You don’t go to a fast food restaurant and pay one price for access to the menu 
by weight knowing you cannot eat all that weight, you just buy what you need. 
The video content companies need to go to this eventually to stem the massive 
erosion of the cable video subscribers, but they are going to milk that cash 
cow as long as they can.

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

 

http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/?utm_source=feedburner
 
http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+DroidLife+%28Droid+Life%29utm_content=FaceBook
 
utm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+DroidLife+%28Droid+Life%29utm_content=FaceBook

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Mike Hammett]

That's a great marketing idea, but I bet some douche is going to ruin it... 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:38:42 AM 
Subject: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end 


http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+DroidLife+%28Droid+Life%29utm_content=FaceBook
 
Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Mike Hammett]

It has nothing to do with free speech. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:29:06 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end 


Oh it's great for business. Terrible for free speech. 



Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Matt Hoppes  mhop...@indigowireless.com  
wrote: 


Or the beginning of new business opportunities for smaller companies. 


On 7/31/14, 11:07 AM, Clay Stewart wrote: 
 Or the beginning of new law suits 
 
 On Jul 31, 2014 10:38 AM, Josh Luthman  j...@imaginenetworksllc.com 

 mailto: j...@imaginenetworksllc.com  wrote: 
 
 http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+DroidLife+%28Droid+Life%29utm_content=FaceBook
  
 
 Josh Luthman 
 Office: 937-552-2340 tel: 937-552-2340  
 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel: 937-552-2343  

 1100 Wayne St 
 Suite 1337 
 Troy, OH 45373 
 
 
 ___ 
 Wireless mailing list 
 Wireless@wispa.org mailto: Wireless@wispa.org  
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 


 
 
 
 ___ 
 Wireless mailing list 
 Wireless@wispa.org 
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 




___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Mike Hammett]

You don't need NetFlix to pay you for a fast lane... just meet them in their 
dozen or so facilities and get it for free instead of paying for it. Other than 
that, I agree with you. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: Joe Fiero joe1...@optonline.net 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:15:04 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end 



I don’t comment all that often here, but very much pay attention to the voices 
of experience. On Net Neutrality, I have plenty to say. As with most of my FCC 
comments, what I filed 2 weeks ago with them went against the grain. I am a 
purist who has been in telecom since I repaired my first CB radio for a 
neighbor at the age of 14. I helped launch Metromedia’s cellular system in NY, 
a company I was a part owner in was the first acquisition of Fleetcall in NY 
City. Anyone as old as me would remember that Fleetcall became NexTel, and for 
the real youngsters, they were acquired by Sprint for what turned out to be a 
total write-off of $35 billion in December of 2004. I have been using 
unlicensed radio to link communications sites since long before it went 
digital. 

One thing my experience and observations have taught me is that nothing 
promotes innovation like free market. We need not look beyond our own industry 
to prove that. When no one would service 40% of America, we collectively built 
an industry that matured into a recognized and respected market sector. I was 
involved in the previous formation of an industry that is both parallel and 
intertwined with WISPS, that of home satellite television. 

Back in the mid 1970’s a band of tenacious, adventurous experimenters took 
handfuls of surplus junk and built home earth stations. In short order we went 
from being pirates and thieves to an established medium to reach rural America. 
It wasn’t long before the big money found us and pushed us out of the way. We 
went from a place where we could make a respectable income to being lackeys for 
DirecTV and DISH who generously paid us a few dollars to do the job and then 
gave us a big residual of 50 cents to about two dollars, on subscribers that 
ARPU of $100 or more. 

WISPs have been struggling to keep up with the Netflix demand since they went 
to Internet delivery in 2009. Systems big and small quickly found their choke 
points. And like in highway design, if you upgrade one intersection, the 
traffic jam just moves to the next unimproved intersection. The problem is, 
unlike the highway department, we don’t run on tax revenue. We have to charge 
subscribers for a service that is both fair and responsive to their needs. 

The SPRINT concept in the article is the most fair and responsible way to 
assure that our infrastructure can meet the demand, and that those creating the 
demand are the ones paying for it. The FCC needs to stop cow-towing to the 
illiterate public who are still touting that they need to “protect the FREE 
Internet”. Who gets this for free? If you are in a coffee shop, the proprietor 
is paying for it. Public Wi-Fi is advertising or tax subsidized. Do we get 
power, water, heating for free? 

Ten years ago we projected a mass movement from the PSTN to VoIP. Even the 
industry experts never predicted a loss of 48% of copper lines in 10 years. 
What was built up over a century dissipated in the blink of an eye. We are 
again on the cusp of a shift in the paradigm that will see cable and satellite 
users shift to Internet based delivery on any device they desire. The same 
dramatic reduction witnessed in copper phone lines awaits the traditional 
Multichannel marketplace. And along with the big guns, we are on the front 
line. We will be expected to deliver copious amounts of data to subscribers as 
they stream HD video and music to multiple devices in their homes and offices. 

We, the WISP industry, need to step up our game if we are going to remain part 
of this. We are going to have to emulate the cellular industry with frequency 
reuse like we never imagined. We are going to have to replace our older radios 
with ones that can deliver the required bandwidth, and our backhauls are going 
to need enough capacity to handle all this. 

But how do we justify the cost, who do we charge, and how do we do it? The 
early agreement with Verizon and Netflix that received the FCC’s blessing was 
never going to benefit everyone. How long would it take for you and I to get 
Netflix to pay for our “fast lane”? My guess was never. 

Netflix, Hulu, and the like have created a business model where they have no 
cost to deliver a product to their users. They are using the infrastructure 
built and paid for by others, then stirring up the ignorant masses to complain 
to the FCC about the free Internet. I have learned the hard way that no matter 
what is done to increase bandwidth, the increase is negated in short

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Greg Osborn]

I don’t believe that to be most everyone’s gripe.  Internet and transport are 
cheap in comparison to backhaul and the labor required to implement.  We have 
around 250 links, if you take Netflix out of the equation, you are not chasing 
your tail upgrading them all the time.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

 

You don't need NetFlix to pay you for a fast lane...  just meet them in their 
dozen or so facilities and get it for free instead of paying for it. Other than 
that, I agree with you.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

 https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL  
https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb  
https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions  
https://twitter.com/ICSIL 



  _  

From: Joe Fiero joe1...@optonline.net mailto:joe1...@optonline.net 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:15:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

I don’t comment all that often here, but very much pay attention to the voices 
of experience.  On Net Neutrality, I have plenty to say.  As with most of my 
FCC comments, what I filed 2 weeks ago with them went against the grain.  I am 
a purist who has been in telecom since I repaired my first CB radio for a 
neighbor at the age of 14.  I helped launch Metromedia’s cellular system in NY, 
 a company I was a part owner in was the first acquisition of Fleetcall in NY 
City.  Anyone as old as me would remember that Fleetcall became NexTel, and for 
the real youngsters, they were acquired by Sprint for what turned out to be a 
total write-off of $35 billion in December of 2004.  I have been using 
unlicensed radio to link communications sites since long before it went 
digital.  

 

One thing my experience and observations have taught me is that nothing 
promotes innovation like free market.  We need not look beyond our own industry 
to prove that.  When no one would service 40% of America, we collectively built 
an industry that matured into a recognized and respected market sector.   I was 
involved in the previous formation of an industry that is both parallel and 
intertwined with WISPS, that of home satellite television. 

 

Back in the mid 1970’s a band of tenacious, adventurous experimenters took 
handfuls of surplus junk and built home earth stations.  In short order we went 
from being pirates and thieves to an established medium to reach rural America. 
 It wasn’t long before the big money found us and pushed us out of the way.  We 
went from a place where we could make a respectable income to being lackeys for 
DirecTV and DISH who generously paid us a few dollars to do the job and then 
gave us a big residual of 50 cents to about two dollars, on subscribers that 
ARPU of $100 or more.

 

WISPs have been struggling to keep up with the Netflix demand since they went 
to Internet delivery in 2009.  Systems big and small quickly found their choke 
points.  And like in highway design, if you upgrade one intersection, the 
traffic jam just moves to the next unimproved intersection.  The problem is, 
unlike the highway department, we don’t run on tax revenue.  We have to charge 
subscribers for a service that is both fair and responsive to their needs.

 

The SPRINT concept in the article is the most fair and responsible way to 
assure that our infrastructure can meet the demand, and that those creating the 
demand are the ones paying for it.  The FCC needs to stop cow-towing to the 
illiterate public who are still touting that they need to “protect the FREE 
Internet”.  Who gets this for free?  If you are in a coffee shop, the 
proprietor is paying for it.  Public Wi-Fi is advertising or tax subsidized.  
Do we get power, water, heating for free?  

 

Ten years ago we projected a mass movement from the PSTN to VoIP.  Even the 
industry experts never predicted a loss of 48% of copper lines in 10 years.  
What was built up over a century dissipated in the blink of an eye.  We are 
again on the cusp of a shift in the paradigm that will see cable and satellite 
users shift to Internet based delivery on any device they desire.  The same 
dramatic reduction witnessed in copper phone lines awaits the traditional 
Multichannel marketplace.  And along with the big guns, we are on the front 
line.  We will be expected to deliver copious amounts of data to subscribers as 
they stream HD video and music to multiple devices in their homes and offices.  

 

We, the WISP industry, need to step up our game if we are going to remain part 
of this.  We are going to have to emulate the cellular industry with frequency 
reuse like we never imagined.  We are going to have to replace our older radios 
with ones that can deliver

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[James Howard]

Do you get the connection to that facility for free?  This is just like every 
time the bandwidth cost discussion comes up.  The prices that people post that 
they’re paying in carrier hotels never include the cost of the connection 
they’re using to get there, much less the cross connect and rack fees.

Just saying……

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

You don't need NetFlix to pay you for a fast lane...  just meet them in their 
dozen or so facilities and get it for free instead of paying for it. Other than 
that, I agree with you.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]https://twitter.com/ICSIL


From: Joe Fiero joe1...@optonline.netmailto:joe1...@optonline.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:15:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end
I don’t comment all that often here, but very much pay attention to the voices 
of experience.  On Net Neutrality, I have plenty to say.  As with most of my 
FCC comments, what I filed 2 weeks ago with them went against the grain.  I am 
a purist who has been in telecom since I repaired my first CB radio for a 
neighbor at the age of 14.  I helped launch Metromedia’s cellular system in NY, 
 a company I was a part owner in was the first acquisition of Fleetcall in NY 
City.  Anyone as old as me would remember that Fleetcall became NexTel, and for 
the real youngsters, they were acquired by Sprint for what turned out to be a 
total write-off of $35 billion in December of 2004.  I have been using 
unlicensed radio to link communications sites since long before it went digital.

One thing my experience and observations have taught me is that nothing 
promotes innovation like free market.  We need not look beyond our own industry 
to prove that.  When no one would service 40% of America, we collectively built 
an industry that matured into a recognized and respected market sector.   I was 
involved in the previous formation of an industry that is both parallel and 
intertwined with WISPS, that of home satellite television.

Back in the mid 1970’s a band of tenacious, adventurous experimenters took 
handfuls of surplus junk and built home earth stations.  In short order we went 
from being pirates and thieves to an established medium to reach rural America. 
 It wasn’t long before the big money found us and pushed us out of the way.  We 
went from a place where we could make a respectable income to being lackeys for 
DirecTV and DISH who generously paid us a few dollars to do the job and then 
gave us a big residual of 50 cents to about two dollars, on subscribers that 
ARPU of $100 or more.

WISPs have been struggling to keep up with the Netflix demand since they went 
to Internet delivery in 2009.  Systems big and small quickly found their choke 
points.  And like in highway design, if you upgrade one intersection, the 
traffic jam just moves to the next unimproved intersection.  The problem is, 
unlike the highway department, we don’t run on tax revenue.  We have to charge 
subscribers for a service that is both fair and responsive to their needs.

The SPRINT concept in the article is the most fair and responsible way to 
assure that our infrastructure can meet the demand, and that those creating the 
demand are the ones paying for it.  The FCC needs to stop cow-towing to the 
illiterate public who are still touting that they need to “protect the FREE 
Internet”.  Who gets this for free?  If you are in a coffee shop, the 
proprietor is paying for it.  Public Wi-Fi is advertising or tax subsidized.  
Do we get power, water, heating for free?

Ten years ago we projected a mass movement from the PSTN to VoIP.  Even the 
industry experts never predicted a loss of 48% of copper lines in 10 years.  
What was built up over a century dissipated in the blink of an eye.  We are 
again on the cusp of a shift in the paradigm that will see cable and satellite 
users shift to Internet based delivery on any device they desire.  The same 
dramatic reduction witnessed in copper phone lines awaits the traditional 
Multichannel marketplace.  And along with the big guns, we are on the front 
line.  We will be expected to deliver copious amounts of data to subscribers as 
they stream HD video and music to multiple devices in their homes and offices.

We, the WISP industry, need to step up our game if we are going to remain

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Mike Hammett]

Drop transport at more places in your network is good for resiliency and 
performance. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: Greg Osborn gregwosb...@gmail.com 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:40:40 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end 



I don’t believe that to be most everyone’s gripe. Internet and transport are 
cheap in comparison to backhaul and the labor required to implement. We have 
around 250 links, if you take Netflix out of the equation, you are not chasing 
your tail upgrading them all the time. 



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:31 PM 
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end 


You don't need NetFlix to pay you for a fast lane... just meet them in their 
dozen or so facilities and get it for free instead of paying for it. Other than 
that, I agree with you. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 




- Original Message -


From: Joe Fiero  joe1...@optonline.net  
To: WISPA General List  wireless@wispa.org  
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:15:04 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end 
I don’t comment all that often here, but very much pay attention to the voices 
of experience. On Net Neutrality, I have plenty to say. As with most of my FCC 
comments, what I filed 2 weeks ago with them went against the grain. I am a 
purist who has been in telecom since I repaired my first CB radio for a 
neighbor at the age of 14. I helped launch Metromedia’s cellular system in NY, 
a company I was a part owner in was the first acquisition of Fleetcall in NY 
City. Anyone as old as me would remember that Fleetcall became NexTel, and for 
the real youngsters, they were acquired by Sprint for what turned out to be a 
total write-off of $35 billion in December of 2004. I have been using 
unlicensed radio to link communications sites since long before it went 
digital. 

One thing my experience and observations have taught me is that nothing 
promotes innovation like free market. We need not look beyond our own industry 
to prove that. When no one would service 40% of America, we collectively built 
an industry that matured into a recognized and respected market sector. I was 
involved in the previous formation of an industry that is both parallel and 
intertwined with WISPS, that of home satellite television. 

Back in the mid 1970’s a band of tenacious, adventurous experimenters took 
handfuls of surplus junk and built home earth stations. In short order we went 
from being pirates and thieves to an established medium to reach rural America. 
It wasn’t long before the big money found us and pushed us out of the way. We 
went from a place where we could make a respectable income to being lackeys for 
DirecTV and DISH who generously paid us a few dollars to do the job and then 
gave us a big residual of 50 cents to about two dollars, on subscribers that 
ARPU of $100 or more. 

WISPs have been struggling to keep up with the Netflix demand since they went 
to Internet delivery in 2009. Systems big and small quickly found their choke 
points. And like in highway design, if you upgrade one intersection, the 
traffic jam just moves to the next unimproved intersection. The problem is, 
unlike the highway department, we don’t run on tax revenue. We have to charge 
subscribers for a service that is both fair and responsive to their needs. 

The SPRINT concept in the article is the most fair and responsible way to 
assure that our infrastructure can meet the demand, and that those creating the 
demand are the ones paying for it. The FCC needs to stop cow-towing to the 
illiterate public who are still touting that they need to “protect the FREE 
Internet”. Who gets this for free? If you are in a coffee shop, the proprietor 
is paying for it. Public Wi-Fi is advertising or tax subsidized. Do we get 
power, water, heating for free? 

Ten years ago we projected a mass movement from the PSTN to VoIP. Even the 
industry experts never predicted a loss of 48% of copper lines in 10 years. 
What was built up over a century dissipated in the blink of an eye. We are 
again on the cusp of a shift in the paradigm that will see cable and satellite 
users shift to Internet based delivery on any device they desire. The same 
dramatic reduction witnessed in copper phone lines awaits the traditional 
Multichannel marketplace. And along with the big guns, we are on the front 
line. We will be expected to deliver copious amounts of data to subscribers as 
they stream HD video and music to multiple devices in their homes and offices. 

We, the WISP industry, need to step up our game if we are going to remain part 
of this. We are going to have to emulate the cellular

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Mike Hammett]

Transport is generally less expensive than transit from the same provider. Not 
free, but certainly less expensive. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: James Howard ja...@litewire.net 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:45:07 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end 



Do you get the connection to that facility for free? This is just like every 
time the bandwidth cost discussion comes up. The prices that people post that 
they’re paying in carrier hotels never include the cost of the connection 
they’re using to get there, much less the cross connect and rack fees. 

Just saying…… 



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:31 PM 
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end 


You don't need NetFlix to pay you for a fast lane... just meet them in their 
dozen or so facilities and get it for free instead of paying for it. Other than 
that, I agree with you. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 




- Original Message -


From: Joe Fiero  joe1...@optonline.net  
To: WISPA General List  wireless@wispa.org  
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:15:04 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end 
I don’t comment all that often here, but very much pay attention to the voices 
of experience. On Net Neutrality, I have plenty to say. As with most of my FCC 
comments, what I filed 2 weeks ago with them went against the grain. I am a 
purist who has been in telecom since I repaired my first CB radio for a 
neighbor at the age of 14. I helped launch Metromedia’s cellular system in NY, 
a company I was a part owner in was the first acquisition of Fleetcall in NY 
City. Anyone as old as me would remember that Fleetcall became NexTel, and for 
the real youngsters, they were acquired by Sprint for what turned out to be a 
total write-off of $35 billion in December of 2004. I have been using 
unlicensed radio to link communications sites since long before it went 
digital. 

One thing my experience and observations have taught me is that nothing 
promotes innovation like free market. We need not look beyond our own industry 
to prove that. When no one would service 40% of America, we collectively built 
an industry that matured into a recognized and respected market sector. I was 
involved in the previous formation of an industry that is both parallel and 
intertwined with WISPS, that of home satellite television. 

Back in the mid 1970’s a band of tenacious, adventurous experimenters took 
handfuls of surplus junk and built home earth stations. In short order we went 
from being pirates and thieves to an established medium to reach rural America. 
It wasn’t long before the big money found us and pushed us out of the way. We 
went from a place where we could make a respectable income to being lackeys for 
DirecTV and DISH who generously paid us a few dollars to do the job and then 
gave us a big residual of 50 cents to about two dollars, on subscribers that 
ARPU of $100 or more. 

WISPs have been struggling to keep up with the Netflix demand since they went 
to Internet delivery in 2009. Systems big and small quickly found their choke 
points. And like in highway design, if you upgrade one intersection, the 
traffic jam just moves to the next unimproved intersection. The problem is, 
unlike the highway department, we don’t run on tax revenue. We have to charge 
subscribers for a service that is both fair and responsive to their needs. 

The SPRINT concept in the article is the most fair and responsible way to 
assure that our infrastructure can meet the demand, and that those creating the 
demand are the ones paying for it. The FCC needs to stop cow-towing to the 
illiterate public who are still touting that they need to “protect the FREE 
Internet”. Who gets this for free? If you are in a coffee shop, the proprietor 
is paying for it. Public Wi-Fi is advertising or tax subsidized. Do we get 
power, water, heating for free? 

Ten years ago we projected a mass movement from the PSTN to VoIP. Even the 
industry experts never predicted a loss of 48% of copper lines in 10 years. 
What was built up over a century dissipated in the blink of an eye. We are 
again on the cusp of a shift in the paradigm that will see cable and satellite 
users shift to Internet based delivery on any device they desire. The same 
dramatic reduction witnessed in copper phone lines awaits the traditional 
Multichannel marketplace. And along with the big guns, we are on the front 
line. We will be expected to deliver copious amounts of data to subscribers as 
they stream HD video and music to multiple devices in their homes and offices. 

We, the WISP industry, need to step up our game if we are going

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Clay Stewart]

 the cost, who do we charge, and how do we do it?
 The early agreement with Verizon and Netflix that received the FCC’s
 blessing was never going to benefit everyone.  How long would it take for
 you and I to get Netflix to pay for our “fast lane”?  My guess was never.



 Netflix, Hulu, and the like have created a business model where they have
 no cost to deliver a product to their users.  They are using the
 infrastructure built and paid for by others, then stirring up the ignorant
 masses to complain to the FCC about the free Internet.   I have learned the
 hard way that no matter what is done to increase bandwidth, the increase is
 negated in short order, often weeks if not days, by savvy users that
 realize they can pull another stream and waste no time setting it up.



 The simple answer is, let the market decide.  If you want Netflix, each
 stream will cost you a monthly fee.  Likewise for other streaming
 services.  This way the user pays, not everyone.









 *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On
 Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
 *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:39 AM
 *To:* WISPA General List
 *Subject:* [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end




 http://www.droid-life.com/2014/07/30/12-a-month-for-facebook-sprint-tramples-over-net-neutrality-with-new-prepaid-plan/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+DroidLife+%28Droid+Life%29utm_content=FaceBook

 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




-- 


-- 
Clay Stewart, CEO
SCS Broadband
  434.263.6363 O
  434.942.6510 C
  cstew...@scsbroadband.com
“We Keep You Up and Running”

Please send sales inquiries to sa...@scsbroadband.com
Please send service/repair requests to supp...@scsbroadband.com
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Tim Densmore]

  
  
On 07/31/2014 11:15 AM, Joe Fiero wrote:
Netflix,

Hulu, and the like have created a business model where they have
no cost to deliver a product to their users.  They are using the
infrastructure built and paid for by others, then stirring up
the ignorant masses to complain to the FCC about the free
Internet.
Hi Folks,

Just a question - is this the general consensus among list members? 
I ask because in a recent similar thread on the NANOG list there was
a WISP owner presenting the same argument.  I'm curious whether this
is the viewpoint held by many WISPs.

Thanks,

Tim Densmore
  

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Mike Hammett]

I don't, no. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: Tim Densmore tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com 
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:31:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end 

On 07/31/2014 11:15 AM, Joe Fiero wrote: 


Netflix, Hulu, and the like have created a business model where they have no 
cost to deliver a product to their users. They are using the infrastructure 
built and paid for by others, then stirring up the ignorant masses to complain 
to the FCC about the free Internet. 

Hi Folks, 

Just a question - is this the general consensus among list members? I ask 
because in a recent similar thread on the NANOG list there was a WISP owner 
presenting the same argument. I'm curious whether this is the viewpoint held by 
many WISPs. 

Thanks, 

Tim Densmore 

___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Mike Lyon]

Not this WISP...

-Mike

On Thursday, July 31, 2014, Tim Densmore tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com
wrote:

  On 07/31/2014 11:15 AM, Joe Fiero wrote:

 Netflix, Hulu, and the like have created a business model where they have
 no cost to deliver a product to their users.  They are using the
 infrastructure built and paid for by others, then stirring up the ignorant
 masses to complain to the FCC about the free Internet.

 Hi Folks,

 Just a question - is this the general consensus among list members?  I ask
 because in a recent similar thread on the NANOG list there was a WISP owner
 presenting the same argument.  I'm curious whether this is the viewpoint
 held by many WISPs.

 Thanks,

 Tim Densmore



-- 
Mike Lyon
408-621-4826
mike.l...@gmail.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Mike Lyon]

And that was an extremely painful thread on NANOG, BTW

On Thursday, July 31, 2014, Mike Lyon mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 Not this WISP...

 -Mike

 On Thursday, July 31, 2014, Tim Densmore tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com'); wrote:

  On 07/31/2014 11:15 AM, Joe Fiero wrote:

 Netflix, Hulu, and the like have created a business model where they have
 no cost to deliver a product to their users.  They are using the
 infrastructure built and paid for by others, then stirring up the ignorant
 masses to complain to the FCC about the free Internet.

 Hi Folks,

 Just a question - is this the general consensus among list members?  I
 ask because in a recent similar thread on the NANOG list there was a WISP
 owner presenting the same argument.  I'm curious whether this is the
 viewpoint held by many WISPs.

 Thanks,

 Tim Densmore



 --
 Mike Lyon
 408-621-4826
 mike.l...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mike.l...@gmail.com');

 http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon






-- 
Mike Lyon
408-621-4826
mike.l...@gmail.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Tim Densmore]

  
  
Absolutely - I didn't mean to rekindle it here.  I'm just surprised
when I see that kind of viewpoint, and I'm I'm trying to understand
it a little better, hopefully with a lot less saber rattling than in
that thread.  I currently agree with most of the posters in the
NANOG thread, but I've been wrong before.  Many, many times.

Tim

On 07/31/2014 08:42 PM, Mike Lyon
  wrote:

And that was an extremely painful thread on NANOG,
  BTW
  
  On Thursday, July 31, 2014, Mike Lyon mike.l...@gmail.com
  wrote:
  
Not this WISP... 


-Mike 

  On Thursday, July 31, 2014, Tim Densmore tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com
  wrote:
  
 On 07/31/2014 11:15
  AM, Joe Fiero wrote:
  Netflix,


  Hulu, and the like have created a business model where
  they have no cost to deliver a product to their
  users.  They are using the infrastructure built and
  paid for by others, then stirring up the ignorant
  masses to complain to the FCC about the free Internet.
  Hi Folks,
  
  Just a question - is this the general consensus among list
  members?  I ask because in a recent similar thread on the
  NANOG list there was a WISP owner presenting the same
  argument.  I'm curious whether this is the viewpoint held
  by many WISPs.
  
  Thanks,
  
  Tim Densmore

  



-- 

  Mike Lyon
  408-621-4826
  
  mike.l...@gmail.com
  
  
  
  http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
  
  
  
  
  
  


  
  
  
  -- 
  
Mike Lyon
408-621-4826

mike.l...@gmail.com



http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon






  
  
  
  
  
  ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



  

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] Net Neutrality Comedy

[Dennis Burgess]

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/nnj3ic/end-of-net-neutrality

 

 

Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of Learn RouterOS-
Second Edition http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm 

 Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik  WISP Support Services

 Office: 314-735-0270 tel:314-735-0270  Website:
http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/  - Skype: linktechs
skype:linktechs?call

 -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com
http://www.towercoverage.com/  - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV
Whitespace  

 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

[MDK]

We had quite a conversation on TVWS, actually.   I explained how rules prohibit 
its use in so many instances that though it's a huge effort, where I live, for 
instance, there's no more than 2 channels.   If that.  Also, that HAAT rules 
seriously block deployment in areas where it would be most useful (mountains, 
forest).   
++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++


From: John Scrivner 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 7:10 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality


Glad to hear someone up there in DC is listening. Did you happen to mention 
anything about our need of access to TVWS? 
Scriv



On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:56 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:


  Monday morning I got a phone call from a 202 number and answered it.   The
  name sounded vaguely familiar, but he finally identified himself as the
  assistant to my congressman.   Ahh, now I know why I recognize the name.
  Been in politics around here for many years.   State and federal.

  Thursday or Friday, I stumbled across a news story of my US Rep praising the
  FCC's changes to USF, which, from descriptions, look bad for me and most
  of us, as it involves subsidizing rural wireless (insert cellular for
  wireless and you get the gist) I was ticked as you can imagine, because
  he's literally from a small town where WISP's play a signficant role in
  broadband availablity.

  Well, I guess I must have used the right combination of words, because he
  (the assistant to my US Rep)  wanted to know what it was I thought.  Well,
  we had 20 minute conversation, where I explained that we as an industry are
  often the only viable operators for small niche areas where it simply is
  impossible to string wires or bury cables or whatever, in a cost effective
  manner (and he knows precisely what I mean, he drives the same roads and
  knows the same places I do), and now, someone's going to apply to get USF
  money to come and build right out over us, with subsidized funding.

  He didn't disagree with that assessment, btw, and asked what I thought
  should be done.   Abolish, of course.   In his view, the term of life for
  continual subsidy of rural telecom via USF has been abruptly shortened, and,
  they're at least talking about ending any continuous subsidy for anyone.  Of
  course, they can't end USF, because Congress made it law, but ending it is
  certainly an option in House, he implied.

  Further, we've reached the point where much of rural broadband is hampered
  by beaurocratic obstruction as much as anything else.  the need to use
  public land, or telephone pole access, or power pole access,  federal land
  use, and numerous other expensive and complicated matters.   I explained
  that it has traditionally been that people with great skill for beaurocracy
  get the money, but rarely seem to have great skill at getting customers
  happy and resourceful at accomplishing the technical challenges.  That
  subsidy causes business models to be built on it, rather than sustainable
  competitive operations.

  That we need the markets open to being able to enter the phone, tv, and
  internet business with whatever the appropriate technology, without endless
  hurdles in our way.   No idea if it did any good, but at least one person,
  who is at the top of the issues that matter to us in the house, got some
  input from the ground level.





  ++
  Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
  541-969-8200  509-386-4589
  ++






  

  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  


  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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











WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[MDK]

Tom:

I understand your position that we should respect authority, but there's 
also the fact that sometimes, you have to stand up to people who are not 
supposed to be doing what they're doing, even when in government office.

As far as it goes, I have nothing to lose, really.  While the business is 
self sustaining, and makes me a small profit, I have never been in this bad 
of shape in my life.   10 months ago, the wife was injured at work,  4 
months ago, the injury, though treated and investigated, reached the point 
she could no longer work.  The workmen's comp insurer decided to try to duck 
any responsibility, and now lawyers are dragging them kicking and fighting 
all the way, but it's going to take months to get this done, with endless 
hearings and legal dodging and gamesmanship.   Even when or if we win (and 
we should) it means many more months of surgery, recovery, therapy.

At this point,  we're down to our last few bucks, I don't make enough to pay 
even the rent+utilities+cell phones.  So, if they want to try to squeeze me 
for money...  bring it on, I got nuttin, honey.   They just can't hurt me 
anymore than we've been hurt, so, I got nothing to lose.   And further,  I'm 
fighting mad.  Just one more authority showing up with a big stick saying 
work for me for nothing, you slave!



++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

--
From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 2:54 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

 At the end of the day it boils down to whether its justified for a WISP to
 risk going to court.
 Admittedly, any government industry can cause a private company a lot of
 pain, if they want to, if you challenge them.
 That is not something someone should consider doing, lightly.

 With that said sometimes one must take a stand to defend their rights
 and what they believe in.
 Even if not cost effective for their own good, if its for the good of 
 their
 industry.

 Just like BrandX, eventually someone had to step up to take it to trial, 
 win
 or loose.
 If a WISP was put in a position that they had to go to court, I bet that
 other third party groups would be willing to assist fund the battle behind
 the scenes.
 I'm not talking just other WISPs. I'm talking about other big money
 companies that couldn't risk a netneutrality loss on the court record,
 documenting presidence.

 My opinion is that it would not be wise for the federal enforcement
 agencies to target small organizations to challenge their rulemaking in
 court.
 One, It would be a media/publicity nightmare.  Such as  FCC puts small
 business out of business.
 Two, It would be embaressing, and make FCC look weak. Bully FCC picks on
 the little guy.
 Three, Small WISPs would gain more sympathee from Juries than Big money
 Telcos.

 In my opinion the FCC rule making is not legal. Atleast not for those 
 that
 aren't telecom act defined regulated carriers.  And in my opinion, a WISP
 could simply refuse to comply, and demand that the FCC obtain a court 
 order
 to back their claim of authority. If the FCC came knocking on my door to
 enforce an alledged NetNeutrality issue, I would fight it.

 I think the disclosure portion is the one good part of the FCC 
 rulemaking.
 For that reason, I plan to comply with the disclosure portion, just 
 because
 it makes good sense to do it anyway. Not to mention it would be just plain
 stupid not to comply to such an easy request, which would be almost like
 requesting a challenge, not to cooperate on such an easy request.  Plus,
 not disclosing info could open up a WISP to legal issues covered by laws 
 not
 related to NetNeutrality, such as truth in advertising. Disclosure should 
 be
 vague, so not to self inciminate more than necessary.

 But as far as complying to the other rules of NetNeutrality, I am going to
 operate my network the way I want to, and I'm not going to change that,
 unless I'm forced to.

 Please note, in general I respect the FCC's authority, and my viewpoint
 stated herein is strictly relating to NetNeutrality.

 Hopefully, I as well as other WISPs will operate their networks fairly, so
 this issue never has to come up. So many issues could be defended by
 reasonable network mangement, to defend oneself without the need for
 court.


 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Tony Iacopi t...@razzolink.com
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:19 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality


 Hi there,

 Unfortunately I would love to agree with Matt and the fact that I paid for
 the network so I should be able to do what I want with it, however, the 
 way
 it is currently written, if you provide internet service (which I believe 
 we
 all do

[WISPA] Net Neutrality

[MDK]

Monday morning I got a phone call from a 202 number and answered it.   The 
name sounded vaguely familiar, but he finally identified himself as the 
assistant to my congressman.   Ahh, now I know why I recognize the name. 
Been in politics around here for many years.   State and federal.

Thursday or Friday, I stumbled across a news story of my US Rep praising the 
FCC's changes to USF, which, from descriptions, look bad for me and most 
of us, as it involves subsidizing rural wireless (insert cellular for 
wireless and you get the gist) I was ticked as you can imagine, because 
he's literally from a small town where WISP's play a signficant role in 
broadband availablity.

Well, I guess I must have used the right combination of words, because he 
(the assistant to my US Rep)  wanted to know what it was I thought.  Well, 
we had 20 minute conversation, where I explained that we as an industry are 
often the only viable operators for small niche areas where it simply is 
impossible to string wires or bury cables or whatever, in a cost effective 
manner (and he knows precisely what I mean, he drives the same roads and 
knows the same places I do), and now, someone's going to apply to get USF 
money to come and build right out over us, with subsidized funding.

He didn't disagree with that assessment, btw, and asked what I thought 
should be done.   Abolish, of course.   In his view, the term of life for 
continual subsidy of rural telecom via USF has been abruptly shortened, and, 
they're at least talking about ending any continuous subsidy for anyone.  Of 
course, they can't end USF, because Congress made it law, but ending it is 
certainly an option in House, he implied.

Further, we've reached the point where much of rural broadband is hampered 
by beaurocratic obstruction as much as anything else.  the need to use 
public land, or telephone pole access, or power pole access,  federal land 
use, and numerous other expensive and complicated matters.   I explained 
that it has traditionally been that people with great skill for beaurocracy 
get the money, but rarely seem to have great skill at getting customers 
happy and resourceful at accomplishing the technical challenges.  That 
subsidy causes business models to be built on it, rather than sustainable 
competitive operations.

That we need the markets open to being able to enter the phone, tv, and 
internet business with whatever the appropriate technology, without endless 
hurdles in our way.   No idea if it did any good, but at least one person, 
who is at the top of the issues that matter to us in the house, got some 
input from the ground level.




++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, in this case USF

[Forbes Mercy]

Nice job!  You said most of our talking points on this, I only wish all 
Congress would remember where they come from and give their WISP a call, 
maybe more members could do what you did and initiate the call to get 
the dialogue started.  While USF is outside of Congress the FCC sure 
listens to them so it never hurts to educate Legislators to what the 
lobbyists for our competition fails to do, Fixed Wireless is a major player.

Thanks,
Forbes

On 11/1/2011 10:56 AM, MDK wrote:
 Monday morning I got a phone call from a 202 number and answered it.   The
 name sounded vaguely familiar, but he finally identified himself as the
 assistant to my congressman.   Ahh, now I know why I recognize the name.
 Been in politics around here for many years.   State and federal.

 Thursday or Friday, I stumbled across a news story of my US Rep praising the
 FCC's changes to USF, which, from descriptions, look bad for me and most
 of us, as it involves subsidizing rural wireless (insert cellular for
 wireless and you get the gist) I was ticked as you can imagine, because
 he's literally from a small town where WISP's play a signficant role in
 broadband availablity.

 Well, I guess I must have used the right combination of words, because he
 (the assistant to my US Rep)  wanted to know what it was I thought.  Well,
 we had 20 minute conversation, where I explained that we as an industry are
 often the only viable operators for small niche areas where it simply is
 impossible to string wires or bury cables or whatever, in a cost effective
 manner (and he knows precisely what I mean, he drives the same roads and
 knows the same places I do), and now, someone's going to apply to get USF
 money to come and build right out over us, with subsidized funding.

 He didn't disagree with that assessment, btw, and asked what I thought
 should be done.   Abolish, of course.   In his view, the term of life for
 continual subsidy of rural telecom via USF has been abruptly shortened, and,
 they're at least talking about ending any continuous subsidy for anyone.  Of
 course, they can't end USF, because Congress made it law, but ending it is
 certainly an option in House, he implied.

 Further, we've reached the point where much of rural broadband is hampered
 by beaurocratic obstruction as much as anything else.  the need to use
 public land, or telephone pole access, or power pole access,  federal land
 use, and numerous other expensive and complicated matters.   I explained
 that it has traditionally been that people with great skill for beaurocracy
 get the money, but rarely seem to have great skill at getting customers
 happy and resourceful at accomplishing the technical challenges.  That
 subsidy causes business models to be built on it, rather than sustainable
 competitive operations.

 That we need the markets open to being able to enter the phone, tv, and
 internet business with whatever the appropriate technology, without endless
 hurdles in our way.   No idea if it did any good, but at least one person,
 who is at the top of the issues that matter to us in the house, got some
 input from the ground level.




 ++
 Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
 ++





 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 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 message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4589 - Release Date: 11/01/11




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[John Scrivner]

Glad to hear someone up there in DC is listening. Did you happen to mention
anything about our need of access to TVWS?
Scriv


On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:56 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:


 Monday morning I got a phone call from a 202 number and answered it.   The
 name sounded vaguely familiar, but he finally identified himself as the
 assistant to my congressman.   Ahh, now I know why I recognize the name.
 Been in politics around here for many years.   State and federal.

 Thursday or Friday, I stumbled across a news story of my US Rep praising
 the
 FCC's changes to USF, which, from descriptions, look bad for me and most
 of us, as it involves subsidizing rural wireless (insert cellular for
 wireless and you get the gist) I was ticked as you can imagine, because
 he's literally from a small town where WISP's play a signficant role in
 broadband availablity.

 Well, I guess I must have used the right combination of words, because he
 (the assistant to my US Rep)  wanted to know what it was I thought.  Well,
 we had 20 minute conversation, where I explained that we as an industry are
 often the only viable operators for small niche areas where it simply is
 impossible to string wires or bury cables or whatever, in a cost effective
 manner (and he knows precisely what I mean, he drives the same roads and
 knows the same places I do), and now, someone's going to apply to get USF
 money to come and build right out over us, with subsidized funding.

 He didn't disagree with that assessment, btw, and asked what I thought
 should be done.   Abolish, of course.   In his view, the term of life for
 continual subsidy of rural telecom via USF has been abruptly shortened,
 and,
 they're at least talking about ending any continuous subsidy for anyone.
  Of
 course, they can't end USF, because Congress made it law, but ending it is
 certainly an option in House, he implied.

 Further, we've reached the point where much of rural broadband is hampered
 by beaurocratic obstruction as much as anything else.  the need to use
 public land, or telephone pole access, or power pole access,  federal land
 use, and numerous other expensive and complicated matters.   I explained
 that it has traditionally been that people with great skill for beaurocracy
 get the money, but rarely seem to have great skill at getting customers
 happy and resourceful at accomplishing the technical challenges.  That
 subsidy causes business models to be built on it, rather than sustainable
 competitive operations.

 That we need the markets open to being able to enter the phone, tv, and
 internet business with whatever the appropriate technology, without endless
 hurdles in our way.   No idea if it did any good, but at least one person,
 who is at the top of the issues that matter to us in the house, got some
 input from the ground level.




 ++
 Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
 ++






 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[Tom DeReggi]

At the end of the day it boils down to whether its justified for a WISP to 
risk going to court.
Admittedly, any government industry can cause a private company a lot of 
pain, if they want to, if you challenge them.
That is not something someone should consider doing, lightly.

With that said sometimes one must take a stand to defend their rights 
and what they believe in.
Even if not cost effective for their own good, if its for the good of their 
industry.

Just like BrandX, eventually someone had to step up to take it to trial, win 
or loose.
If a WISP was put in a position that they had to go to court, I bet that 
other third party groups would be willing to assist fund the battle behind 
the scenes.
I'm not talking just other WISPs. I'm talking about other big money 
companies that couldn't risk a netneutrality loss on the court record, 
documenting presidence.

My opinion is that it would not be wise for the federal enforcement 
agencies to target small organizations to challenge their rulemaking in 
court.
One, It would be a media/publicity nightmare.  Such as  FCC puts small 
business out of business.
Two, It would be embaressing, and make FCC look weak. Bully FCC picks on 
the little guy.
Three, Small WISPs would gain more sympathee from Juries than Big money 
Telcos.

In my opinion the FCC rule making is not legal. Atleast not for those that 
aren't telecom act defined regulated carriers.  And in my opinion, a WISP 
could simply refuse to comply, and demand that the FCC obtain a court order 
to back their claim of authority. If the FCC came knocking on my door to 
enforce an alledged NetNeutrality issue, I would fight it.

I think the disclosure portion is the one good part of the FCC rulemaking. 
For that reason, I plan to comply with the disclosure portion, just because 
it makes good sense to do it anyway. Not to mention it would be just plain 
stupid not to comply to such an easy request, which would be almost like 
requesting a challenge, not to cooperate on such an easy request.  Plus, 
not disclosing info could open up a WISP to legal issues covered by laws not 
related to NetNeutrality, such as truth in advertising. Disclosure should be 
vague, so not to self inciminate more than necessary.

But as far as complying to the other rules of NetNeutrality, I am going to 
operate my network the way I want to, and I'm not going to change that, 
unless I'm forced to.

Please note, in general I respect the FCC's authority, and my viewpoint 
stated herein is strictly relating to NetNeutrality.

Hopefully, I as well as other WISPs will operate their networks fairly, so 
this issue never has to come up. So many issues could be defended by 
reasonable network mangement, to defend oneself without the need for 
court.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Tony Iacopi t...@razzolink.com
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality


Hi there,

Unfortunately I would love to agree with Matt and the fact that I paid for
the network so I should be able to do what I want with it, however, the way
it is currently written, if you provide internet service (which I believe we
all do) you are suppose to comply.  I also agree that it is a flagrant
overreach for the FCC but until it is overruled it is in place.  Got to love
the Governments protection of the small business owner.

Thanks

Tony Iacopi


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:55 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

The fact that the DC Circuit (their motto: We hate the FCC) got the case
raises the odds even more.

LOL...have I mentioned how much I enjoy having you back on lists Fred?


Regards,

Jeff
ImageStream Sales Manager
800-813-5123 x106

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

At 10/25/2011 07:43 PM, Matt Larsen wrote:

If you are a Title II regulated telco, they might apply to you.

As an operator of a privately funded broadband network, Net Neutrality does
not apply to you. You paid for it, you can do what you want with it.

Legally, per the letter of the Communications Act, that's true.

The FCC does not agree; Part 8 leaves the original monopoly common carriers
unregulated, but purports to regulate ISP content.

However, I give it a much greater than even probability to be overturned by
a court, because it is so flagrantly illegal. In fact, I think the FCC
expected that to be the result when they wrote it. Politics is funny like
that. Congress and the states pass laws which they know will be overturned,
and the FCC follows their lead

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

[MDK]

If I ever post anything in regards to it will be:

Hey, FCC, I claim my Constitution right to be unencumbered by laws which 
neither you nor Congress have any authority to write, go stick your head in 
the sand!  Sincerely:  John Q Public.




++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

--
From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 3:19 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

 If a legislator or someone from the FCC reads that I'm going to be
 pretty irritated.

 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373



 On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net 
 wrote:
 Yes, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at 
 any time. We will insure our network runs as fast as possible for 
 interactive web applications.  If you feel that we are blocking something 
 you need, then you can go back to dialup.  Ahhahaha

 ---
 Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
 Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik  WISP Support Services
 Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
 LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On Behalf Of Matt
 Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 3:43 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

  I am working with two law firms which I hope to announce today, that 
  will
 be
  marketing Open Internet (Net Neutrality) Disclosure Compliance
 Statements
  templates or assistance at a relatively low cost.  They are doing this 
  for
  WISPA members.  All ISP's must be in compliance and have statements on
 their
  websites by November 20th.  There is a bit of homework that will need 
  to
 be
  done by each WISP about their network, management practices,
 throughputs,
  etc. that may not be accomplished if you wait until the last minute.
 
  Again, my hope is to get this out today or Monday morning, maybe both!

 Have any ISP's posted this on there website already?  Curious what it
 looks like?


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[Tony Iacopi]

Hi there,

Unfortunately I would love to agree with Matt and the fact that I paid for
the network so I should be able to do what I want with it, however, the way
it is currently written, if you provide internet service (which I believe we
all do) you are suppose to comply.  I also agree that it is a flagrant
overreach for the FCC but until it is overruled it is in place.  Got to love
the Governments protection of the small business owner.

Thanks

Tony Iacopi


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:55 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

“The fact that the DC Circuit (their motto: We hate the FCC) got the case
raises the odds even more.”

LOL...have I mentioned how much I enjoy having you back on lists Fred?


Regards,

Jeff
ImageStream Sales Manager
800-813-5123 x106

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

At 10/25/2011 07:43 PM, Matt Larsen wrote:

If you are a Title II regulated telco, they might apply to you.

As an operator of a privately funded broadband network, Net Neutrality does
not apply to you.   You paid for it, you can do what you want with it.

Legally, per the letter of the Communications Act, that's true.

The FCC does not agree; Part 8 leaves the original monopoly common carriers
unregulated, but purports to regulate ISP content.

However, I give it a much greater than even probability to be overturned by
a court, because it is so flagrantly illegal.  In fact, I think the FCC
expected that to be the result when they wrote it.  Politics is funny like
that.  Congress and the states pass laws which they know will be overturned,
and the FCC follows their lead.

The fact that the DC Circuit (their motto: We hate the FCC) got the case
raises the odds even more.


Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com

On 10/25/2011 4:46 PM, Tony Iacopi wrote: 

Hi there,

Just got off the phone with my FCC attorney and the Net Neutrality rules are
back on and we are to comply by Nov. 20th.  Has anyone done anything
regarding this, we are working on it but would like to know what others are
doing.  Let me know.
 
Thanks
 
Tony Iacopi
831-902-0700
t...@razzolink.com
 






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List:
wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

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

Archives:

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





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 --
 Fred Goldstein    k1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com   
 ionary Consulting        http://www.ionary.com/ 
 +1 617 795 2701

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/3974 - Release Date: 10/25/11





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[David E. Smith]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 09:19, Tony Iacopi t...@razzolink.com wrote:

 Unfortunately I would love to agree with Matt and the fact that I paid for
 the network so I should be able to do what I want with it, however, the way
 it is currently written, if you provide internet service (which I believe
 we
 all do) you are suppose to comply.  I also agree that it is a flagrant
 overreach for the FCC but until it is overruled it is in place.  Got to
 love
 the Governments protection of the small business owner.


The government isn't trying to protect the small business owner - they're
trying to protect the perceived interest of the majority of common citizens.

A majority of citizens are using bigger carriers (cable companies and
telcos), and that majority likely will benefit from these rules. Yes, it
kinda stinks for smaller businesses, but them's the breaks sometimes.

Anyone that has access to the members list care to comment on what WISPA is
doing to ease compliance for small ISPs?

David Smith
(definitely not speaking for) MVN.net



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

I think ultimately it will fail in the courts or the next Congress will rein
the FCC in on this matter.  The initial finding wasn't too onerous, but it
was the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.  If it were to stand, the
courts would have a lot of fun defining what reasonable network management
means.  My guess is that their definition will not be the same as mine.

 

If you are blocking content, streaming, competitive VoIP products, or
degrading them to the point where they are useless, you probably have a
target on your business.  If you aren't, and are trying to make the
experience work for everyone, and not allow a couple of heavy users to trash
your network, you are probably ok.

 

Regards,

Jeff
ImageStream Sales Manager
800-813-5123 x106

  _  

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of David E. Smith
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:26 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

 

 

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 09:19, Tony Iacopi t...@razzolink.com wrote:

Unfortunately I would love to agree with Matt and the fact that I paid for
the network so I should be able to do what I want with it, however, the way
it is currently written, if you provide internet service (which I believe we
all do) you are suppose to comply.  I also agree that it is a flagrant
overreach for the FCC but until it is overruled it is in place.  Got to love
the Governments protection of the small business owner.

 

The government isn't trying to protect the small business owner - they're
trying to protect the perceived interest of the majority of common citizens.

 

A majority of citizens are using bigger carriers (cable companies and
telcos), and that majority likely will benefit from these rules. Yes, it
kinda stinks for smaller businesses, but them's the breaks sometimes.

 

Anyone that has access to the members list care to comment on what WISPA is
doing to ease compliance for small ISPs?

 

David Smith

(definitely not speaking for) MVN.net

  _  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/3980 - Release Date: 10/28/11




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[Rick Harnish]

David,

 

I am working with two law firms which I hope to announce today, that will be
marketing Open Internet (Net Neutrality) Disclosure Compliance Statements
templates or assistance at a relatively low cost.  They are doing this for
WISPA members.  All ISP's must be in compliance and have statements on their
websites by November 20th.  There is a bit of homework that will need to be
done by each WISP about their network, management practices, throughputs,
etc. that may not be accomplished if you wait until the last minute.  

 

Again, my hope is to get this out today or Monday morning, maybe both!

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

Executive Director

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of David E. Smith
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:26 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

 

 

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 09:19, Tony Iacopi t...@razzolink.com wrote:

Unfortunately I would love to agree with Matt and the fact that I paid for
the network so I should be able to do what I want with it, however, the way
it is currently written, if you provide internet service (which I believe we
all do) you are suppose to comply.  I also agree that it is a flagrant
overreach for the FCC but until it is overruled it is in place.  Got to love
the Governments protection of the small business owner.

 

The government isn't trying to protect the small business owner - they're
trying to protect the perceived interest of the majority of common citizens.

 

A majority of citizens are using bigger carriers (cable companies and
telcos), and that majority likely will benefit from these rules. Yes, it
kinda stinks for smaller businesses, but them's the breaks sometimes.

 

Anyone that has access to the members list care to comment on what WISPA is
doing to ease compliance for small ISPs?

 

David Smith

(definitely not speaking for) MVN.net




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[Matt]

 I am working with two law firms which I hope to announce today, that will be
 marketing Open Internet (Net Neutrality) Disclosure Compliance Statements
 templates or assistance at a relatively low cost.  They are doing this for
 WISPA members.  All ISP’s must be in compliance and have statements on their
 websites by November 20th.  There is a bit of homework that will need to be
 done by each WISP about their network, management practices, throughputs,
 etc. that may not be accomplished if you wait until the last minute.

 Again, my hope is to get this out today or Monday morning, maybe both!

Have any ISP's posted this on there website already?  Curious what it
looks like?



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[Dennis Burgess]

Yes, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any 
time. We will insure our network runs as fast as possible for interactive web 
applications.  If you feel that we are blocking something you need, then you 
can go back to dialup.  Ahhahaha 

---
Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer 
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik  WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On Behalf Of Matt
 Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 3:43 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
 
  I am working with two law firms which I hope to announce today, that will
 be
  marketing Open Internet (Net Neutrality) Disclosure Compliance
 Statements
  templates or assistance at a relatively low cost.  They are doing this for
  WISPA members.  All ISP's must be in compliance and have statements on
 their
  websites by November 20th.  There is a bit of homework that will need to
 be
  done by each WISP about their network, management practices,
 throughputs,
  etc. that may not be accomplished if you wait until the last minute.
 
  Again, my hope is to get this out today or Monday morning, maybe both!
 
 Have any ISP's posted this on there website already?  Curious what it
 looks like?
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[Josh Luthman]

If a legislator or someone from the FCC reads that I'm going to be
pretty irritated.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net wrote:
 Yes, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any 
 time. We will insure our network runs as fast as possible for interactive web 
 applications.  If you feel that we are blocking something you need, then you 
 can go back to dialup.  Ahhahaha

 ---
 Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
 Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik  WISP Support Services
 Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
 LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On Behalf Of Matt
 Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 3:43 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

  I am working with two law firms which I hope to announce today, that will
 be
  marketing Open Internet (Net Neutrality) Disclosure Compliance
 Statements
  templates or assistance at a relatively low cost.  They are doing this for
  WISPA members.  All ISP's must be in compliance and have statements on
 their
  websites by November 20th.  There is a bit of homework that will need to
 be
  done by each WISP about their network, management practices,
 throughputs,
  etc. that may not be accomplished if you wait until the last minute.
 
  Again, my hope is to get this out today or Monday morning, maybe both!

 Have any ISP's posted this on there website already?  Curious what it
 looks like?


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

“The fact that the DC Circuit (their motto: We hate the FCC) got the case
raises the odds even more.”

LOL...have I mentioned how much I enjoy having you back on lists Fred?


Regards,

Jeff
ImageStream Sales Manager
800-813-5123 x106

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

At 10/25/2011 07:43 PM, Matt Larsen wrote:

If you are a Title II regulated telco, they might apply to you.

As an operator of a privately funded broadband network, Net Neutrality does
not apply to you.   You paid for it, you can do what you want with it.

Legally, per the letter of the Communications Act, that's true.

The FCC does not agree; Part 8 leaves the original monopoly common carriers
unregulated, but purports to regulate ISP content.

However, I give it a much greater than even probability to be overturned by
a court, because it is so flagrantly illegal.  In fact, I think the FCC
expected that to be the result when they wrote it.  Politics is funny like
that.  Congress and the states pass laws which they know will be overturned,
and the FCC follows their lead.

The fact that the DC Circuit (their motto: We hate the FCC) got the case
raises the odds even more.


Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com

On 10/25/2011 4:46 PM, Tony Iacopi wrote: 

Hi there,

Just got off the phone with my FCC attorney and the Net Neutrality rules are
back on and we are to comply by Nov. 20th.  Has anyone done anything
regarding this, we are working on it but would like to know what others are
doing.  Let me know.
 
Thanks
 
Tony Iacopi
831-902-0700
t...@razzolink.com
 






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List:
wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

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

Archives:

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





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 --
 Fred Goldstein    k1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com   
 ionary Consulting        http://www.ionary.com/ 
 +1 617 795 2701

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/3974 - Release Date: 10/25/11




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Net Neutrality

[Tony Iacopi]

Hi there,


Just got off the phone with my FCC attorney and the Net Neutrality rules are
back on and we are to comply by Nov. 20th.  Has anyone done anything
regarding this, we are working on it but would like to know what others are
doing.  Let me know.

 

Thanks

 

Tony Iacopi

831-902-0700

t...@razzolink.com

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

If you are a Title II regulated telco, they might apply to you.

As an operator of a privately funded broadband network, Net Neutrality 
does not apply to you.   You paid for it, you can do what you want with it.


Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com

On 10/25/2011 4:46 PM, Tony Iacopi wrote:


Hi there,


Just got off the phone with my FCC attorney and the Net Neutrality 
rules are back on and we are to comply by Nov. 20th.  Has anyone done 
anything regarding this, we are working on it but would like to know 
what others are doing.  Let me know.


Thanks

Tony Iacopi

831-902-0700

t...@razzolink.com





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/25/2011 07:43 PM, Matt Larsen wrote:

If you are a Title II regulated telco, they might apply to you.

As an operator of a privately funded broadband network, Net 
Neutrality does not apply to you.   You paid for it, you can do what 
you want with it.


Legally, per the letter of the Communications Act, that's true.

The FCC does not agree; Part 8 leaves the original monopoly common 
carriers unregulated, but purports to regulate ISP content.


However, I give it a much greater than even probability to be 
overturned by a court, because it is so flagrantly illegal.  In fact, 
I think the FCC expected that to be the result when they wrote 
it.  Politics is funny like that.  Congress and the states pass laws 
which they know will be overturned, and the FCC follows their lead.


The fact that the DC Circuit (their motto: We hate the FCC) got the 
case raises the odds even more.



Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com

On 10/25/2011 4:46 PM, Tony Iacopi wrote:

Hi there,

Just got off the phone with my FCC attorney and the Net Neutrality 
rules are back on and we are to comply by Nov. 20th.  Has anyone 
done anything regarding this, we are working on it but would like 
to know what others are doing.  Let me know.


Thanks

Tony Iacopi
831-902-0700
mailto:t...@razzolink.comt...@razzolink.com







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org

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

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





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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... Two articles...

[John Scrivner]

This reply represents my opinions and is not an official position of WISPA.

There is no official position within WISPA regarding Net Nuetrality that I
have ever seen. If there was then we would likely see it on our website and
in our filings.  The general consensus I have seen is that our focus is best
placed in other areas. Nobody in WISPA wants pure Net Neutrality. There is
some discussion that many believe that it should be applied to national
carriers (those who sell pipes to other providers) to assure that the main
pipes feeding WISPs are not turned into tollways for every piece of content.
I am of the opinion that the larger national retail broadband carriers
(CableCos, Telcos and Cellcos) will do the fighting to beat it no matter
what position we take. So picking our battles is where I think we need to
be. Net Neutrality is not the biggest obstacle we face.

If auctions sell all the prime spectrum to the highest bidders then this is
a far bigger obstacle to our future. If an Internet  Tax (aka re-purposed
USF and / or CAF) are allowed to come into play this will seriously harm
WISPs as these will almost certainly be limited to ILECs, RBOCs and CMRS
carriers. This will put many WISPs into the unfortunate position of having
to collect taxes from their customers and in return seeing none of the money
going to them. Worse it will help pay their competitors to put them out of
business. So I believe WISPA is fighting more for spectrum issues and is
working on how to position themselves regarding Internet Taxes. The USF
issue may become tricky as we have many WISP members who are also ILECs and
CLECs who would likely support some forms of USF. I am not in that category
at all. I want to see ZERO INTERNET TAXES OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER.

I have what I believe is an interesting slant that WISPs could benefit from
regarding Net Neutrality. At this point there is enough fighting between the
larger interests that nobody is really concentrating on an opportunity I
feel we can all take advantage of. If we all upgrade our networks to meet
Net Neutrality requirements in the future then an interesting benefit
happens for our industry. Cellcos look at Net Neutrality as being absolute
toxic to their models. They want to control all content and charge a premium
for every bit that passes through their over-priced networks. This is
their Achilles heal in my opinion.

If we were to work toward expanding upstream and backhaul capacity, lowering
subs per AP and lowering the bit over-subscription levels on our networks
then we could use Net Neutrality principles as a marketing tool to give us
an edge over the other alternatives including satellite and cellcos.
Interestingly I am of the belief that I hope Net Neutrality fails not
because I want to sell premium access to content to my subscribers but
because I feel that I can use the idea of equal access to all content to
make my service a better option to my customers than satellite or cellcos.
In the end it means a more robust network which is always a good thing
regardless of whether a regulation tells me to do it or not.

Within a year I plan to have my network running at Net Neutrality abilities
and at the same time hoping Net Neutrality regulation fails. I am covered
either way as I see it. I believe in the long run that those who embrace the
equal access principles of Net Neutrality, whether it is mandated or not,
will be the carriers of choice by most all customers. I also believe you
will see television over broadband becoming more and more prevalent which
will be tough to support but will help drive adoption of fixed wireless
(those who have robust enough networks to handle the load) in rural areas
and fiber in urban deployments.

So should WISPA try to fight the Net Neutrality battle or focus on other
issues? You guys know where I stand. If anyone wants to be part of the
effort to decide what WISPA does then join us. We can use your help.
John Scrivner



On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:07 PM, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:

  Rick, I didn't take any potshots at anyone.

 I linked a couple of short blurbs on the net..

 and asked... What's WISPA's official stand or statement?   Is there one?



 ++
 Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
 ++

  *From:* Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org
 *Sent:* Saturday, March 05, 2011 7:49 AM
 *To:* 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...

  Mark,



 Why don’t you join WISPA and be part of the process instead of taking pot
 shots from the “hinterlands”.  It is time you stepped up to be counted.



 For the record, I am personally “totally against” Network Neutrality; at
 least the versions that have been presented thus far.  Forcing unmanaged
 network content on broadband infrastructure operators will have dire
 consequences in the operation of the Internet and the businesses that
 provide

Re: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...

[Tom DeReggi]

I cant speak for WISPA's official opinon but

I am still very much against NetNeutrality, as all it really is is an excuse 
for more regulation and less competion, and protection for content providers, 
and more liablilty for Access providers. And quite honestly, I am still 
appauled that the FCC bundled WISPs in with Fixed Wireline carriers, without 
any special consideration.
That just supports why we should not want this group of FCC leaders to define 
and control our fate via more regulation.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: MDK 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 1:08 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...


  
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/147121-house-leadership-questions-why-industry-isnt-fighting-in-net-regs?tmpl=componentprint=1page=

  Excerpt:
  House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) convened a meeting of top 
communications companies on Wednesday morning, where he questioned why they are 
not doing more to help Republicans in the fight against net-neutrality rules. 

  A spokeswoman for McCarthy confirmed the meeting. 

  
http://biggovernment.com/nrbrown/2011/03/04/republican-reactive-neutrality/print/

  Excerpt:

  The facts are that Net Neutrality is not about keeping all the bits equal.  
Net Neutrality is about regulatory creep.  It's about controlling the 
infrastructure so that the message can be controlled.  It's about things like 
Internet Sidewalks [5], and Free Press' founder Robert McChesneys desire to 
control information, have a government takeover of infrastructure, and control 
what is available to the people.  We know this when he stated,

  You will never, ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. 
That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over 
network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable 
companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of 
the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from 
control.


  I asked once... about a year ago.   What side is WISPA on?

  I still can't tell.  Are they on the no regulation is needed, get lost! 
bandwagon, or are they on the We welcome the chance to have input on your 
future plans bandwagon?

  The two roads diverged a while back.   

  Which is WISPA on?  


  ++
  Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
  541-969-8200  509-386-4589
  ++



--




  

  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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... Two articles...

[Tom DeReggi]

And now is the time to jump back in on the fight because the republicans have 
gained a lot of headway towards reversing the FCC's actions.
And they are likely going to win, with the support of the industry behind them.
 
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: MDK 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 1:08 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...


  
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/147121-house-leadership-questions-why-industry-isnt-fighting-in-net-regs?tmpl=componentprint=1page=

  Excerpt:
  House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) convened a meeting of top 
communications companies on Wednesday morning, where he questioned why they are 
not doing more to help Republicans in the fight against net-neutrality rules. 

  A spokeswoman for McCarthy confirmed the meeting. 

  
http://biggovernment.com/nrbrown/2011/03/04/republican-reactive-neutrality/print/

  Excerpt:

  The facts are that Net Neutrality is not about keeping all the bits equal.  
Net Neutrality is about regulatory creep.  It's about controlling the 
infrastructure so that the message can be controlled.  It's about things like 
Internet Sidewalks [5], and Free Press' founder Robert McChesneys desire to 
control information, have a government takeover of infrastructure, and control 
what is available to the people.  We know this when he stated,

  You will never, ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. 
That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over 
network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable 
companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of 
the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from 
control.


  I asked once... about a year ago.   What side is WISPA on?

  I still can't tell.  Are they on the no regulation is needed, get lost! 
bandwagon, or are they on the We welcome the chance to have input on your 
future plans bandwagon?

  The two roads diverged a while back.   

  Which is WISPA on?  


  ++
  Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
  541-969-8200  509-386-4589
  ++



--




  

  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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... Two articles...

[Rick Harnish]

Mark,

 

Why don't you join WISPA and be part of the process instead of taking pot
shots from the hinterlands.  It is time you stepped up to be counted.

 

For the record, I am personally totally against Network Neutrality; at
least the versions that have been presented thus far.  Forcing unmanaged
network content on broadband infrastructure operators will have dire
consequences in the operation of the Internet and the businesses that
provide it.

 

Rick

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of MDK
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 1:09 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/147121-house-leadership-
questions-why-industry-isnt-fighting-in-net-regs?tmpl=component
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/147121-house-leadership
-questions-why-industry-isnt-fighting-in-net-regs?tmpl=componentprint=1pag
e= print=1page=

 

Excerpt:

House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) convened a meeting of top
communications companies on Wednesday morning, where he questioned why they
are not doing more to help Republicans in the fight against net-neutrality
rules. 

A spokeswoman for McCarthy confirmed the meeting. 

http://biggovernment.com/nrbrown/2011/03/04/republican-reactive-neutrality/p
rint/

Excerpt:

The facts are that Net Neutrality is not about keeping all the bits equal.
Net Neutrality is about regulatory creep.  It's about controlling the
infrastructure so that the message can be controlled.  It's about things
like  http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-10-18at.html Internet
Sidewalks [5], and Free Press' founder Robert McChesneys desire to control
information, have a government takeover of infrastructure, and control what
is available to the people.  We know this when he stated,

You will never, ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time.
That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over
network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable
companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid
of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them
from control.

 

I asked once... about a year ago.   What side is WISPA on?

 

I still can't tell.  Are they on the no regulation is needed, get lost!
bandwagon, or are they on the We welcome the chance to have input on your
future plans bandwagon?

 

The two roads diverged a while back.   

 

Which is WISPA on?  

 

 

++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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... Two articles...

[MDK]

Rick, I didn't take any potshots at anyone.   

I linked a couple of short blurbs on the net..

and asked... What's WISPA's official stand or statement?   Is there one?   



++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++


From: Rick Harnish 
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 7:49 AM
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...


Mark,

 

Why don't you join WISPA and be part of the process instead of taking pot shots 
from the hinterlands.  It is time you stepped up to be counted.

 

For the record, I am personally totally against Network Neutrality; at least 
the versions that have been presented thus far.  Forcing unmanaged network 
content on broadband infrastructure operators will have dire consequences in 
the operation of the Internet and the businesses that provide it.

 

Rick

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of MDK
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 1:09 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/147121-house-leadership-questions-why-industry-isnt-fighting-in-net-regs?tmpl=componentprint=1page=

 

Excerpt:

House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) convened a meeting of top communications 
companies on Wednesday morning, where he questioned why they are not doing more 
to help Republicans in the fight against net-neutrality rules. 

A spokeswoman for McCarthy confirmed the meeting. 

http://biggovernment.com/nrbrown/2011/03/04/republican-reactive-neutrality/print/

Excerpt:

The facts are that Net Neutrality is not about keeping all the bits equal.  Net 
Neutrality is about regulatory creep.  It's about controlling the 
infrastructure so that the message can be controlled.  It's about things like 
Internet Sidewalks [5], and Free Press' founder Robert McChesneys desire to 
control information, have a government takeover of infrastructure, and control 
what is available to the people.  We know this when he stated,

You will never, ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That 
being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network 
neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We 
are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media 
capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.

 

I asked once... about a year ago.   What side is WISPA on?

 

I still can't tell.  Are they on the no regulation is needed, get lost! 
bandwagon, or are they on the We welcome the chance to have input on your 
future plans bandwagon?

 

The two roads diverged a while back.   

 

Which is WISPA on?  

 

 

++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

 









WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...

[MDK]

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/147121-house-leadership-questions-why-industry-isnt-fighting-in-net-regs?tmpl=componentprint=1page=

Excerpt:
House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) convened a meeting of top communications 
companies on Wednesday morning, where he questioned why they are not doing more 
to help Republicans in the fight against net-neutrality rules. 

A spokeswoman for McCarthy confirmed the meeting. 

http://biggovernment.com/nrbrown/2011/03/04/republican-reactive-neutrality/print/

Excerpt:

The facts are that Net Neutrality is not about keeping all the bits equal.  Net 
Neutrality is about regulatory creep.  It's about controlling the 
infrastructure so that the message can be controlled.  It's about things like 
Internet Sidewalks [5], and Free Press' founder Robert McChesneys desire to 
control information, have a government takeover of infrastructure, and control 
what is available to the people.  We know this when he stated,

You will never, ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That 
being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network 
neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We 
are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media 
capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.


I asked once... about a year ago.   What side is WISPA on?

I still can't tell.  Are they on the no regulation is needed, get lost! 
bandwagon, or are they on the We welcome the chance to have input on your 
future plans bandwagon?

The two roads diverged a while back.   

Which is WISPA on?  


++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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 statement from Genakowski

[MDK]

I find it disturbing that almost no public discussion of this is going on.   Is 
this a matter where we think that the imposition will have little or no effect 
on us, or do we expect to simply ignore it, or is everyone just confident it 
won't happen?   

There's a lot going on, on many fronts, economic and social and governmental, 
and our collective future appears headed not just for us having loss on an 
individual basis, but full national currency and economic collapse.  You'd 
think the public list would get mention of at least the FCC actions and 
planning to coordinate resistance - along with how it will affect everyone, be 
they WISPA centric or not.   



++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++


From: Fred Goldstein 
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 7:43 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality statement from Genakowski


At 9/2/2010 05:59 PM, you wrote:

  How, uhh.. .do they propose to ban doing this?


By permitting specialized services (anything other than a bog-neutral wide 
open Internet service) only under limited conditions.  Among them are these 
proposals, from the new Further Inquiry:

(E) Limit Specialized Service Offerings: Allow broadband providers to offer 
only a limited set of new specialized services, with functionality that cannot 
be provided via broadband Internet access service, such as a telemedicine 
application that requires enhanced quality of service.19

(F) Guaranteed Capacity for Broadband Internet Access Service: Require 
broadband providers to continue providing or expanding network capacity 
allocated to broadband Internet access service, regardless of any specialized 
services they choose to offer. Relatedly, prohibit specialized services from 
inhibiting the performance of broadband Internet access services at any given 
time, including during periods of peak usage.20

end quote

 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com   
 ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ 
 +1 617 795 2701 









WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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 statement from Genakowski

[Fred Goldstein]

At 9/3/2010 12:06 PM, MDK wrote:
I find it disturbing that almost no public discussion of this is 
going on.   Is this a matter where we think that the imposition will 
have little or no effect on us, or do we expect to simply ignore it, 
or is everyone just confident it won't happen?




ISPs are notoriously individualistic.  WISPA is doing a great service 
by herding the cats, to the extent possible, but the Bells are the 
ones with the real lobby power, and the subsidized RLECs always 
manage to come out ahead.  It has always been understood that the 
Internet is not regulated; telecom is, but WISPs are usually Part 15 
and stay away from that too.  So when there's a real push to regulate 
The Internet, essentially because the public has a rational fear of 
the excessive power that the Bells have already won, small ISPs can 
be caught blind-sided.


There's a lot going on, on many fronts, economic and social and 
governmental, and our collective future appears headed not just for 
us having loss on an individual basis, but full national currency 
and economic collapse.  You'd think the public list would get 
mention of at least the FCC actions and planning to coordinate 
resistance - along with how it will affect everyone, be they WISPA 
centric or not.


You shouldn't confuse bigger macroeconomic issues with small 
regulatory ones.  The economy, for all intents and purposes, 
collapsed in the summer of 2008. The currency, however, is extremely 
strong, for the simple reason that the effective supply of money is 
what really collapsed, and the government's regulated portion of the 
money supply, currency, is what's keeping things afloat.  This is not 
intuitively obvious so you have what looks to me like a hell of a lot 
of demagoguery by politicians trying to worsen the depression in 
order to pin the blame on the President.  I don't want this mailing 
list to get off course so let's leave it at that.


However, the ILECs are so powerful that they are practically like the 
vandals who steal the wires and plumbing out of houses.  They get a 
few hundred dollars of scrap but the repairs cost many 
thousands.  Bells have their power and control protected at all 
costs, regardless of the collateral damage.  Network neutrality is 
a feel-good nostrum.  It was spurred when Verizon got the FCC to end 
the Computer II rules that had made the public Internet possible, and 
when Big Ed of SBC opened his mouth too wide and expressed in public 
what they had been planning.  Some pR0n distributors got hold of the 
idea and took control of the agenda.  Real ISPs were, as usual, 
caught in the crossfire, having been left for dead years ago.




++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

From: mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comFred Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 7:43 PM
To: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgWISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality statement from Genakowski

At 9/2/2010 05:59 PM, you wrote:

How, uhh.. .do they propose to ban doing this?


By permitting specialized services (anything other than a 
bog-neutral wide open Internet service) only under limited 
conditions.  Among them are these proposals, from the new Further Inquiry:


(E) Limit Specialized Service Offerings: Allow broadband providers 
to offer only a limited set of new specialized services, with 
functionality that cannot be provided via broadband Internet access 
service, such as a telemedicine application that requires enhanced 
quality of service.19


(F) Guaranteed Capacity for Broadband Internet Access Service: 
Require broadband providers to continue providing or expanding 
network capacity allocated to broadband Internet access service, 
regardless of any specialized services they choose to offer. 
Relatedly, prohibit specialized services from inhibiting the 
performance of broadband Internet access services at any given time, 
including during periods of peak usage.20


end quote

 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701


--



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com

[WISPA] Net Neutrality statement from Genakowski

[MDK]

Yesterday, the Chairman released a statement on net neutrality, which 
basically said We need more public comment.

This an excerpt from his published statement:

Recent events have highlighted questions on how open Internet rules should 
apply to 'specialized' services and to mobile broadband -- what framework 
will guarantee Internet freedom and openness, and maximize private 
investment and innovation. As we've seen, the issues are complex, and the 
details matter. Even a proposal for enforceable rules can be flawed in its 
specifics and risk undermining the fundamental goal of preserving the open 
Internet.

Accordingly, the FCC's Wireline and Wireless Bureaus are seeking further 
public comment on issues related to 'specialized' (or 'managed') services 
and mobile broadband. The information received through this inquiry, along 
with the record developed to date, will help complete our efforts to 
establish an enforceable framework to preserve Internet freedom and 
openness.

So, people, get your commentary in.

If you're wondering how to approach it in an informative way, this link here 
might help.  I'll give you specific permission to quote, copy, whatever... 
It's written simplistically, but addresses almost all aspects of net 
neutrality.If you have ideas that might improve this, let me know.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Network-Neutrality-an-ISP-POV

Honestly, people do not understand that there really truly cannot be perfect 
net neutrality, and that the way people define the term is widely varied. 
I've discussed this with numerous customers, and once they grasp what is 
being asked for and what is being proposed, and that the legal framework 
simply doesn't fit the service, they're never in favor of it.

We need to  blanket our country with this kind of informative statement.

Thanks


++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++
 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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 statement from Genakowski

[Fred Goldstein]

At 9/2/2010 03:20 PM, MDK wrote:
Yesterday, the Chairman released a statement on net neutrality, which
basically said We need more public comment.

Yes, we'll need to send in more posts to keep them from producing 
rules that put WISPs and other competitive ISPs out of business.  It 
looks as if this latest statement was hastily produced as a way to 
take what Verizon and Google  agreed to and rapidly turn it into 
rules.  Julius is enamored of the deal, for the deal's sake, 
whatever the deal is.  He has a hard-on for FiOS and thinks Google is 
a deity, so their collective opinion trumps 310 million Americans' interests.

Note how the proposed rules essentially outlaw the competitive 
provision of non-POTS telecommunications service (anything but plain 
Internet access).  They suggest that a large ISP is allowed to offer 
some small percentage of their network for other offerings, but the 
types of services that IT managers need for business communications 
(links between their buildings, etc.) are apparently to be banned 
from open provision.  This is just a little gotcha that Verizon 
snuck in, an exmaple of the type of idiocy that this proceeding, and 
the neutrality movement, has begotten.


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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 statement from Genakowski

[MDK]

Could you give us all a link to these provisions?




++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

--
From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 1:21 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality statement from Genakowski

 At 9/2/2010 03:20 PM, MDK wrote:
Yesterday, the Chairman released a statement on net neutrality, which
basically said We need more public comment.

 Yes, we'll need to send in more posts to keep them from producing
 rules that put WISPs and other competitive ISPs out of business.  It
 looks as if this latest statement was hastily produced as a way to
 take what Verizon and Google  agreed to and rapidly turn it into
 rules.  Julius is enamored of the deal, for the deal's sake,
 whatever the deal is.  He has a hard-on for FiOS and thinks Google is
 a deity, so their collective opinion trumps 310 million Americans' 
 interests.

 Note how the proposed rules essentially outlaw the competitive
 provision of non-POTS telecommunications service (anything but plain
 Internet access).  They suggest that a large ISP is allowed to offer
 some small percentage of their network for other offerings, but the
 types of services that IT managers need for business communications
 (links between their buildings, etc.) are apparently to be banned
 from open provision.  This is just a little gotcha that Verizon
 snuck in, an exmaple of the type of idiocy that this proceeding, and
 the neutrality movement, has begotten.


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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 statement from Genakowski

[MDK]

How, uhh.. .do they propose to ban doing this?



 
 Note how the proposed rules essentially outlaw the competitive 
 provision of non-POTS telecommunications service (anything but plain 
 Internet access).  They suggest that a large ISP is allowed to offer 
 some small percentage of their network for other offerings, but the 
 types of services that IT managers need for business communications 
 (links between their buildings, etc.) are apparently to be banned 
 from open provision.  This is just a little gotcha that Verizon 
 snuck in, an exmaple of the type of idiocy that this proceeding, and 
 the neutrality movement, has begotten.
 
 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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 statement from Genakowski

[Fred Goldstein]

At 9/2/2010 05:59 PM, you wrote:

How, uhh.. .do they propose to ban doing this?


By permitting specialized services (anything other than a 
bog-neutral wide open Internet service) only under limited 
conditions.  Among them are these proposals, from the new Further Inquiry:


(E) Limit Specialized Service Offerings: Allow broadband providers to 
offer only a limited set of new specialized services, with 
functionality that cannot be provided via broadband Internet access 
service, such as a telemedicine application that requires enhanced 
quality of service.19


(F) Guaranteed Capacity for Broadband Internet Access Service: 
Require broadband providers to continue providing or expanding 
network capacity allocated to broadband Internet access service, 
regardless of any specialized services they choose to offer. 
Relatedly, prohibit specialized services from inhibiting the 
performance of broadband Internet access services at any given time, 
including during periods of peak usage.20


end quote

 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Because no one actually pays for what the bandwidth actually costs.

No one out here would even consider paying the $250 per meg that I pay for 
bandwidth.

So, I need to keep the right to refuse certain activities in order to have a 
system that is both affordable to the masses and performs well.
marlon

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 3:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] net neutrality, there may be hope yet...


  Why would customers installing file servers cause you a problem if you 
limited their throughput to the Terms and Conditions of their contract where 
you would specify the amount of bandwidth that you were supplying them and 
limiting them to? 


  Fred Goldstein wrote: 
At 8/3/2010 04:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

  That's what I don't understand...  some people are so for Net Neutrality, 
but every unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.

I've long opposed network neutrality rules on grounds that it could put 
most WISPs out of business.  You'd be forced to live by the same rules that the 
urban ILECs and CATVs do, even though your cost of both last-mile capacity and 
middle mile (if rural) is much higher. Thus you'd be required to allow 
customers to install file servers at their subscriber locations, even though 
it's much cheaper (overall) to have them at a fiber backbone site.  Recall that 
Vuze, who made the big stink, is a pR0n distributor using subscriber-site file 
servers and home-user computers to undercut other CDNs on price.  

I think Verizon actually favors such rules, on grounds that FiOS is hurt 
less than most others, including cable, and they'd be happy to see WISPs go 
away.  (When I see them opposing it, I think of Bre'r Rabbit and the brier 
patch.)


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com   
 ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ 
 +1 617 795 2701





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com





--




  

  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[Marlon K. Schafer]

This doesn't quite play out in the real world Jack.

We might sell people 1/512k.  But we do this knowing that *most* of the time 
they won't be anywhere near that.

Think about it like this.  A b radio (works better at distance and in noise 
so I don't often get to use g mode) can realistically deliver 4ish megs to 
the end user.  That's total at any given moment.  4 down or 4 up, not a 
combined 8 megs.

So, with, say 2 megs available for upstream connectivity on an ongoing basis, 
all it takes to kill an ap is 4 users filling up the upstream connection.  Even 
if we throttle them to the 512k that we've said they can have.

It takes a *least* ten subs on an AP for us to turn a profit.  Most of the time 
I try to put 30 to 50 users on an ap.  Setting bandwidth limits on them does 
not help matters one little bit if even a small percentage of the customers run 
constant usage in either direction.  TCP/IP just doesn't work well for 
streaming traffic.  Our radios also just don't have the capacity to pull that 
off either.

As bad as we've got it I can't imagine what the telco engineers are having to 
deal with.  Yeah, they own the copper, but there's cross talk there too.  Gonna 
be interesting over the next 3 to 5 years as more and more people want 
streaming video content via the web.

I guess on the up side, in time (5, 10, 20 years???) that whole triple play 
thing will turn out to have been one big joke.  People will just buy the pipe 
and will put whatever they want on it.  They'll do their own phone, for free or 
close to free.  They'll watch TV when it works for them, on the net, not via 
cable fiber or anything else specific to video content as we think of it today.

Who knows, ESPN may even get a competitor or three and without the franchise 
agreements with the cable companies they'll have a lot less power.  (No one 
really thinks the ESPN360 issue is about something other than what content 
reality will be in 10 years do you)

laters,
marlon

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 6:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] net neutrality, there may be hope yet...


  Fred, 

  Many WISPs throttle throughput according to the terms of the contracted 
service that each customer purchases. For example, if a WISP sells 1 Mb down 
and 512k up then they limit throughput to somewhere near those levels. Under 
those conditions, a customer can have a file or web server and it does not 
adversely affect the overall WISP network performance. This level of throughput 
management should come under the reasonable network management definition 
that service providers are allowed to perform. This throttling is also 
application-independent so no selective throttling by application is needed. 
Finally, the throttling is implemented in routing tables full time and once 
programmed, it requires no human interaction. 


  Fred Goldstein wrote: 
At 8/3/2010 06:24 PM, Jack Unger wrote:

  Why would customers installing file servers cause you a problem if you 
limited their throughput to the Terms and Conditions of their contract where 
you would specify the amount of bandwidth that you were supplying them and 
limiting them to? 



You could limit throughput neutrally, provided that it limited upstream 
file service and interactive applications like gaming and telephony equally.  
That's basically what Comcast consented to do.  However, those applications 
usually require a person to be there; content distribution runs 7x24.  Their 
ToS (I'm a customer) prohibited file and web servers; the FCC found that 
unreasonable.

I do believe that if someone had complained about such activities on 
Verizon's or ATT's part, the K-Mart FCC would have found it perfectly desirable.


  Fred Goldstein wrote: 

At 8/3/2010 04:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

  That's what I don't understand...  some people are so for Net 
Neutrality, but every unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.

I've long opposed network neutrality rules on grounds that it could 
put most WISPs out of business.  You'd be forced to live by the same rules that 
the urban ILECs and CATVs do, even though your cost of both last-mile capacity 
and middle mile (if rural) is much higher. Thus you'd be required to allow 
customers to install file servers at their subscriber locations, even though 
it's much cheaper (overall) to have them at a fiber backbone site.  Recall that 
Vuze, who made the big stink, is a pR0n distributor using subscriber-site file 
servers and home-user computers to undercut other CDNs on price.  

I think Verizon actually favors such rules, on grounds that FiOS is 
hurt less than most others, including cable, and they'd be happy to see WISPs 
go away.  (When I see them opposing it, I think of Bre'r Rabbit and the brier 
patch.)

 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com   
 ionary Consulting

Re: [WISPA] net neutrality, there may be hope yet...

[Robert West]

Our TOS states if they want to run servers then they need a dedicated line.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 11:40 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] net neutrality, there may be hope yet...

 

Because no one actually pays for what the bandwidth actually costs.

 

No one out here would even consider paying the $250 per meg that I pay for
bandwidth.

 

So, I need to keep the right to refuse certain activities in order to have a
system that is both affordable to the masses and performs well.

marlon

 

- Original Message - 

From: Jack Unger mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com  

To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org  

Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 3:24 PM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] net neutrality, there may be hope yet...

 

Why would customers installing file servers cause you a problem if you
limited their throughput to the Terms and Conditions of their contract where
you would specify the amount of bandwidth that you were supplying them and
limiting them to? 


Fred Goldstein wrote: 

At 8/3/2010 04:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:



That's what I don't understand...  some people are so for Net Neutrality,
but every unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.


I've long opposed network neutrality rules on grounds that it could put
most WISPs out of business.  You'd be forced to live by the same rules that
the urban ILECs and CATVs do, even though your cost of both last-mile
capacity and middle mile (if rural) is much higher. Thus you'd be required
to allow customers to install file servers at their subscriber locations,
even though it's much cheaper (overall) to have them at a fiber backbone
site.  Recall that Vuze, who made the big stink, is a pR0n distributor using
subscriber-site file servers and home-user computers to undercut other CDNs
on price.  

I think Verizon actually favors such rules, on grounds that FiOS is hurt
less than most others, including cable, and they'd be happy to see WISPs go
away.  (When I see them opposing it, I think of Bre'r Rabbit and the brier
patch.)




 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com   
 ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ 
 +1 617 795 2701




  _  



 
 
 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
 
 
 
  _  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[Mike Hammett]

 Competition is what keeps your upstream from doing that.  Even if you 
have T-1 service in BFE, you can get a T-1 from any major IXC anywhere 
T-1s are available.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 8/3/2010 11:09 PM, Jack Unger wrote:

Comments inline.

Fred Goldstein wrote:

At 8/3/2010 09:03 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
   

Fred,

Many WISPs throttle throughput according to the terms of the
contracted service that each customer purchases. For example, if a
WISP sells 1 Mb down and 512k up then they limit throughput to
somewhere near those levels. Under those conditions, a customer can
have a file or web server and it does not adversely affect the
overall WISP network performance.
 


Sure it does.  Last week's discussion confirmed that the average ISP
retail residential customer generates a load of about 50-100 kbps.  A
lot higher when using it, near zero at other times.  But a file
server can pump an Mbps or more all day and night.  The whole trick
to low residential pricing is a high oversubscription ratio, and this
is especially true with wireless.
   
Then put a monthly bandwidth cap (or caps) into your Terms of Service 
and price your service accordingly.
   

This level of throughput management should come under the
reasonable network management definition that service providers
are allowed to perform. This throttling is also
application-independent so no selective throttling by application is
needed. Finally, the throttling is implemented in routing tables
full time and once programmed, it requires no human interaction.
 


Reasonable is a rule of man, not rule of law
construct.  Blocking the pirate CDN was not considered reasonable
when it was not done by an ILEC.  I would rather allow ISPs to do as
they please, at risk of displeasing their customers, rather than
follow rules designed to please a cheapskate pR0n distributor.  And
banning servers is a good way to keep the average load and thus the
cost and price down.
   
With no rules, what are you going to do when your upstream provider 
decides to block or throttle your network for whatever the reason? 
They are after all just doing what they please. Without some kind of 
network neutrality protection, there's no law against blocking you, right?
   

Fred Goldstein wrote:
 

At 8/3/2010 06:24 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
   

Why would customers installing file servers cause you a problem if
you limited their throughput to the Terms and Conditions of their
contract where you would specify the amount of bandwidth that you
were supplying them and limiting them to?
 

You could limit throughput neutrally, provided that it limited
upstream file service and interactive applications like gaming and
telephony equally.  That's basically what Comcast consented to
do.  However, those applications usually require a person to be
there; content distribution runs 7x24.  Their ToS (I'm a customer)
prohibited file and web servers; the FCC found that unreasonable.

I do believe that if someone had complained about such activities
on Verizon's or ATT's part, the K-Mart FCC would have found it
perfectly desirable.

   

Fred Goldstein wrote:
 

At 8/3/2010 04:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
   

That's what I don't understand...  some people are so for Net
Neutrality, but every unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.
 

I've long opposed network neutrality rules on grounds that it
could put most WISPs out of business.  You'd be forced to live by
the same rules that the urban ILECs and CATVs do, even though
your cost of both last-mile capacity and middle mile (if rural)
is much higher. Thus you'd be required to allow customers to
install file servers at their subscriber locations, even though
it's much cheaper (overall) to have them at a fiber backbone
site.  Recall that Vuze, who made the big stink, is a pR0n
distributor using subscriber-site file servers and home-user
computers to undercut other CDNs on price.

I think Verizon actually favors such rules, on grounds that FiOS
is hurt less than most others, including cable, and they'd be
happy to see WISPs go away.  (When I see them opposing it, I
think of Bre'r Rabbit and the brier patch.)

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701

   


   --
   Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
   ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/
   +1 617 795 2701




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List:wireless@wispa.org

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

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


   


--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical 

Re: [WISPA] net neutrality, there may be hope yet...

[Brian Webster]

So just let the market pressures dictate this. A WISP can switch upstream
providers if they are being treated unfairly. It may not be cheaper but they
have that right. Upstream providers are in the business of selling bandwidth
so it is unlikely that they will do this if you are truly purchasing
bandwidth from a wholesale provider. The purchaser should carefully examine
the terms of THEIR contract and if they are purchasing bandwidth from a
competitor they should understand the risks of doing so. The free market
system can and will work especially with all of the new competitive systems
that are being built with stimulus money. The government does not need total
control of everything with the idea that reasonable humans can't do it on
their own without them.

 

As much as the whiny consumers can complain, I ask this question, if every
ISP did not work on some sort of oversubscription model then why is it that
a consumer won't go out and buy a 10 meg connection from an upstream
provider and pay the prices all ISP's do? The business owner should have the
right to regulate and manage the capacity of their network as they see fit.
They know what it is capable of, what is profitable and what they feel they
can handle. Having to deal with outside forces that have no idea what that
individuals business model is working under is plain wrong. Will a business
owner make mistakes in some of their practices, no doubt. Will they piss off
consumers and lose customers if they do? Certainly. Last time I checked that
is still a free market system and one of the beauties of being an American
citizen. Government cannot and should not try to keep these mistakes from
happening.

 

If government should be in the place of protecting and taking care of the
poor consumer then why don't they start having grocery store Nazi's dictate
what you buy and eat to protect you and your health and keep the health care
costs down. They know what is a better diet for you so they should dictate
what you are allowed to buy and eat...just saying that at some point the
government needs to stop thinking they are going to be everyone's savior.

 



Brian

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:10 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] net neutrality, there may be hope yet...

 

Comments inline. 

Fred Goldstein wrote: 

At 8/3/2010 09:03 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
  

Fred,
 
Many WISPs throttle throughput according to the terms of the 
contracted service that each customer purchases. For example, if a 
WISP sells 1 Mb down and 512k up then they limit throughput to 
somewhere near those levels. Under those conditions, a customer can 
have a file or web server and it does not adversely affect the 
overall WISP network performance.


 
Sure it does.  Last week's discussion confirmed that the average ISP 
retail residential customer generates a load of about 50-100 kbps.  A 
lot higher when using it, near zero at other times.  But a file 
server can pump an Mbps or more all day and night.  The whole trick 
to low residential pricing is a high oversubscription ratio, and this 
is especially true with wireless.
  

Then put a monthly bandwidth cap (or caps) into your Terms of Service and
price your service accordingly. 



 
  

This level of throughput management should come under the 
reasonable network management definition that service providers 
are allowed to perform. This throttling is also 
application-independent so no selective throttling by application is 
needed. Finally, the throttling is implemented in routing tables 
full time and once programmed, it requires no human interaction.


 
Reasonable is a rule of man, not rule of law 
construct.  Blocking the pirate CDN was not considered reasonable 
when it was not done by an ILEC.  I would rather allow ISPs to do as 
they please, at risk of displeasing their customers, rather than 
follow rules designed to please a cheapskate pR0n distributor.  And 
banning servers is a good way to keep the average load and thus the 
cost and price down.
  

With no rules, what are you going to do when your upstream provider decides
to block or throttle your network for whatever the reason? They are after
all just doing what they please. Without some kind of network neutrality
protection, there's no law against blocking you, right?



 
 
  

Fred Goldstein wrote:


At 8/3/2010 06:24 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
  

Why would customers installing file servers cause you a problem if 
you limited their throughput to the Terms and Conditions of their 
contract where you would specify the amount of bandwidth that you 
were supplying them and limiting them to?


You could limit throughput neutrally, provided that it limited 
upstream file service and interactive applications like gaming and 
telephony equally.  That's basically what Comcast consented to 
do.  However, those applications usually

Re: [WISPA] net neutrality, there may be hope yet...

[Fred Goldstein]

 to keep these mistakes from happening.


If government should be in the place of protecting and taking care 
of the poor consumer then why don't they start having grocery store 
Nazi's dictate what you buy and eat to protect you and your health 
and keep the health care costs down. They know what is a better diet 
for you so they should dictate what you are allowed to buy and 
eat…….just saying that at some point the government needs to stop 
thinking they are going to be everyone's savior.




Brian

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
On Behalf Of Jack Unger

Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:10 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] net neutrality, there may be hope yet...

Comments inline.

Fred Goldstein wrote:

At 8/3/2010 09:03 PM, Jack Unger wrote:

Fred,

Many WISPs throttle throughput according to the terms of the
contracted service that each customer purchases. For example, if a
WISP sells 1 Mb down and 512k up then they limit throughput to
somewhere near those levels. Under those conditions, a customer can
have a file or web server and it does not adversely affect the
overall WISP network performance.



Sure it does.  Last week's discussion confirmed that the average ISP
retail residential customer generates a load of about 50-100 kbps.  A
lot higher when using it, near zero at other times.  But a file
server can pump an Mbps or more all day and night.  The whole trick
to low residential pricing is a high oversubscription ratio, and this
is especially true with wireless.
  Then put a monthly bandwidth cap (or caps) into your Terms of 
Service and price your service accordingly.





This level of throughput management should come under the
reasonable network management definition that service providers
are allowed to perform. This throttling is also
application-independent so no selective throttling by application is
needed. Finally, the throttling is implemented in routing tables
full time and once programmed, it requires no human interaction.



Reasonable is a rule of man, not rule of law
construct.  Blocking the pirate CDN was not considered reasonable
when it was not done by an ILEC.  I would rather allow ISPs to do as
they please, at risk of displeasing their customers, rather than
follow rules designed to please a cheapskate pR0n distributor.  And
banning servers is a good way to keep the average load and thus the
cost and price down.
  With no rules, what are you going to do when your upstream 
provider decides to block or throttle your network for whatever the 
reason? They are after all just doing what they please. Without 
some kind of network neutrality protection, there's no law against 
blocking you, right?






Fred Goldstein wrote:

At 8/3/2010 06:24 PM, Jack Unger wrote:

Why would customers installing file servers cause you a problem if
you limited their throughput to the Terms and Conditions of their
contract where you would specify the amount of bandwidth that you
were supplying them and limiting them to?


You could limit throughput neutrally, provided that it limited
upstream file service and interactive applications like gaming and
telephony equally.  That's basically what Comcast consented to
do.  However, those applications usually require a person to be
there; content distribution runs 7x24.  Their ToS (I'm a customer)
prohibited file and web servers; the FCC found that unreasonable.

I do believe that if someone had complained about such activities
on Verizon's or ATT's part, the K-Mart FCC would have found it
perfectly desirable.


Fred Goldstein wrote:

At 8/3/2010 04:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

That's what I don't understand...  some people are so for Net
Neutrality, but every unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.


I've long opposed network neutrality rules on grounds that it
could put most WISPs out of business.  You'd be forced to live by
the same rules that the urban ILECs and CATVs do, even though
your cost of both last-mile capacity and middle mile (if rural)
is much higher. Thus you'd be required to allow customers to
install file servers at their subscriber locations, even though
it's much cheaper (overall) to have them at a fiber backbone
site.  Recall that Vuze, who made the big stink, is a pR0n
distributor using subscriber-site file servers and home-user
computers to undercut other CDNs on price.

I think Verizon actually favors such rules, on grounds that FiOS
is hurt less than most others, including cable, and they'd be
happy to see WISPs go away.  (When I see them opposing it, I
think of Bre'r Rabbit and the brier patch.)


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless

[WISPA] net neutrality, there may be hope yet...

[MDK]

On the political side of the issue, the anti-Genakowski allies are increasing 
in number and strength.

http://biggovernment.com/smotley/2010/08/03/another-week-of-growing-opposition-to-fccs-internet-grab/#more-152353

I, for one, think that if Comcast Charter or Qwest, or anyone, started 
deprioritizing specific content or blocking certain content providers, that our 
business could boom.I'm getting ready to actually compete with dsl and 
cable in my first town.   Some trepidation at that, wondering if I'm going to 
be investing with little return, but it seems to me that we'd be far better off 
keeping the FCC far, far from our network administration decisions.  

I'm curious what stand WISPA has officially taken, and how it's being followed 
up. 




++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[Mike Hammett]

 That's what I don't understand...  some people are so for Net 
Neutrality, but every unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 8/3/2010 12:34 PM, MDK wrote:
On the political side of the issue, the anti-Genakowski allies are 
increasing in number and strength.

http://biggovernment.com/smotley/2010/08/03/another-week-of-growing-opposition-to-fccs-internet-grab/#more-152353
I, for one, think that if Comcast Charter or Qwest, or anyone, started 
deprioritizing specific content or blocking certain content providers, 
that our business could boom.I'm getting ready to actually compete 
with dsl and cable in my first town.   Some trepidation at that, 
wondering if I'm going to be investing with little return, but it 
seems to me that we'd be far better off keeping the FCC far, far from 
our network administration decisions.
I'm curious what stand WISPA has officially taken, and how it's being 
followed up.

++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[Jeromie Reeves]

That whole slippery slope thing. Its easy to forget that once they
(They are them. They are they. That are the Men in Black) it will
not be simple or easy. Once telcos really start losing to WISPs you
will see them fight all the harder. There are some good telcos out
there (IIRC some one on the list who is one asked the FCC to let them
give away free or nearly free service, the FCC declined) but by and
large, they are evil and they absolutely do not want that to change. I
am sure some of the evilness is simply because that is how the game is
played, structured, setup and ruled.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote:
 That's what I don't understand...  some people are so for Net Neutrality,
 but every unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.

 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com


 On 8/3/2010 12:34 PM, MDK wrote:

 On the political side of the issue, the anti-Genakowski allies are
 increasing in number and strength.

 http://biggovernment.com/smotley/2010/08/03/another-week-of-growing-opposition-to-fccs-internet-grab/#more-152353

 I, for one, think that if Comcast Charter or Qwest, or anyone, started
 deprioritizing specific content or blocking certain content providers, that
 our business could boom.    I'm getting ready to actually compete with dsl
 and cable in my first town.   Some trepidation at that, wondering if I'm
 going to be investing with little return, but it seems to me that we'd be
 far better off keeping the FCC far, far from our network administration
 decisions.

 I'm curious what stand WISPA has officially taken, and how it's being
 followed up.




 ++
 Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
 ++



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[Fred Goldstein]

At 8/3/2010 04:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
That's what I don't understand...  some people are so for Net 
Neutrality, but every unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.


I've long opposed network neutrality rules on grounds that it could 
put most WISPs out of business.  You'd be forced to live by the same 
rules that the urban ILECs and CATVs do, even though your cost of 
both last-mile capacity and middle mile (if rural) is much higher. 
Thus you'd be required to allow customers to install file servers at 
their subscriber locations, even though it's much cheaper (overall) 
to have them at a fiber backbone site.  Recall that Vuze, who made 
the big stink, is a pR0n distributor using subscriber-site file 
servers and home-user computers to undercut other CDNs on price.


I think Verizon actually favors such rules, on grounds that FiOS is 
hurt less than most others, including cable, and they'd be happy to 
see WISPs go away.  (When I see them opposing it, I think of Bre'r 
Rabbit and the brier patch.)



 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[Jack Unger]

Why would customers installing file servers cause you a problem if you
limited their throughput to the Terms and Conditions of their contract
where you would specify the amount of bandwidth that you were supplying
them and limiting them to? 


Fred Goldstein wrote:
At 8/3/2010 04:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
  That's what I don't
understand... some people are so for Net Neutrality, but every
unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.
  
I've long opposed "network neutrality" rules on grounds that it
could put most WISPs out of business. You'd be forced to live by
the same rules that the urban ILECs and CATVs do, even though your cost
of both last-mile capacity and middle mile (if rural) is much higher.
Thus you'd be required to allow customers to install file servers at
their subscriber locations, even though it's much cheaper (overall) to
have them at a fiber backbone site. Recall that Vuze, who made the
big stink, is a pR0n distributor using subscriber-site file servers and
home-user computers to undercut other CDNs on price. 
  
I think Verizon actually favors such rules, on grounds that FiOS is
hurt
less than most others, including cable, and they'd be happy to see
WISPs
go away. (When I see them opposing it, I think of Bre'r Rabbit and
the brier patch.)
  
  
  --
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein
"at" ionary.com 
ionary Consulting
  

  http://www.ionary.com/ 
+1 617 795 2701
  




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com









WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[MDK]

Do you mean by bandwidth, the number of bytes moved, or the maximum velocity 
at which they can move?In the question below, that is.   



++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++


From: Jack Unger 
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 3:24 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] net neutrality, there may be hope yet...


Why would customers installing file servers cause you a problem if you limited 
their throughput to the Terms and Conditions of their contract where you would 
specify the amount of bandwidth that you were supplying them and limiting them 
to? 





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[Fred Goldstein]

At 8/3/2010 06:24 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
Why would customers installing file servers cause you a problem if 
you limited their throughput to the Terms and Conditions of their 
contract where you would specify the amount of bandwidth that you 
were supplying them and limiting them to?




You could limit throughput neutrally, provided that it limited 
upstream file service and interactive applications like gaming and 
telephony equally.  That's basically what Comcast consented to 
do.  However, those applications usually require a person to be 
there; content distribution runs 7x24.  Their ToS (I'm a customer) 
prohibited file and web servers; the FCC found that unreasonable.


I do believe that if someone had complained about such activities on 
Verizon's or ATT's part, the K-Mart FCC would have found it perfectly 
desirable.



Fred Goldstein wrote:

At 8/3/2010 04:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
That's what I don't understand...  some people are so for Net 
Neutrality, but every unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.


I've long opposed network neutrality rules on grounds that it 
could put most WISPs out of business.  You'd be forced to live by 
the same rules that the urban ILECs and CATVs do, even though your 
cost of both last-mile capacity and middle mile (if rural) is much 
higher. Thus you'd be required to allow customers to install file 
servers at their subscriber locations, even though it's much 
cheaper (overall) to have them at a fiber backbone site.  Recall 
that Vuze, who made the big stink, is a pR0n distributor using 
subscriber-site file servers and home-user computers to undercut 
other CDNs on price.


I think Verizon actually favors such rules, on grounds that FiOS is 
hurt less than most others, including cable, and they'd be happy to 
see WISPs go away.  (When I see them opposing it, I think of Bre'r 
Rabbit and the brier patch.)


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
http://www.ask-wi.comwww.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220 
mailto:jun...@ask-wi.comjun...@ask-wi.com







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[Jack Unger]

Fred, 

Many WISPs throttle throughput according to the terms of the contracted
service that each customer purchases. For example, if a WISP sells 1 Mb
down and 512k up then they limit throughput to somewhere near those
levels. Under those conditions, a customer can have a file or web
server and it does not adversely affect the overall WISP network
performance. This level of throughput management should come under the
"reasonable network management" definition that service providers are
allowed to perform. This throttling is also application-independent so
no selective throttling by application is needed. Finally, the
throttling is implemented in routing tables full time and once
programmed, it requires no human interaction. 


Fred Goldstein wrote:
At 8/3/2010 06:24 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
  Why would customers
installing
file servers cause you a problem if you limited their throughput to the
Terms and Conditions of their contract where you would specify the
amount
of bandwidth that you were supplying them and limiting them to? 

  
  
You could limit throughput "neutrally", provided that it
limited upstream file service and interactive applications like gaming
and telephony equally. That's basically what Comcast consented to
do. However, those applications usually require a person to be
there; content distribution runs 7x24. Their ToS (I'm a customer)
prohibited file and web servers; the FCC found that
unreasonable.
  
I do believe that if someone had complained about such activities on
Verizon's or ATT's part, the K-Mart FCC would have found it perfectly
desirable.
  
  Fred Goldstein wrote: 
At 8/3/2010 04:58 PM,
Mike
Hammett wrote:
  That's what I don't
understand... some people are so for Net Neutrality, but every
unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.
  
I've long opposed "network neutrality" rules on grounds that it
could put most WISPs out of business. You'd be forced to live by
the same rules that the urban ILECs and CATVs do, even though your cost
of both last-mile capacity and middle mile (if rural) is much higher.
Thus you'd be required to allow customers to install file servers at
their subscriber locations, even though it's much cheaper (overall) to
have them at a fiber backbone site. Recall that Vuze, who made the
big stink, is a pR0n distributor using subscriber-site file servers and
home-user computers to undercut other CDNs on price. 
  
I think Verizon actually favors such rules, on grounds that FiOS is
hurt
less than most others, including cable, and they'd be happy to see
WISPs
go away. (When I see them opposing it, I think of Bre'r Rabbit and
the brier patch.)
  
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein
"at" ionary.com 
ionary Consulting
  

  http://www.ionary.com/ 
+1 617 795 2701
  
  




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List:
wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

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

Archives:

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



-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
1993
www.ask-wi.com
818-227-4220
jun...@ask-wi.com







WISPA Wants You! Join today!

http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

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

Archives:
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  --
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein
"at" ionary.com 
ionary Consulting
  

  http://www.ionary.com/ 
+1 617 795 2701
  




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com









WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[Fred Goldstein]

At 8/3/2010 09:03 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
Fred,

Many WISPs throttle throughput according to the terms of the 
contracted service that each customer purchases. For example, if a 
WISP sells 1 Mb down and 512k up then they limit throughput to 
somewhere near those levels. Under those conditions, a customer can 
have a file or web server and it does not adversely affect the 
overall WISP network performance.

Sure it does.  Last week's discussion confirmed that the average ISP 
retail residential customer generates a load of about 50-100 kbps.  A 
lot higher when using it, near zero at other times.  But a file 
server can pump an Mbps or more all day and night.  The whole trick 
to low residential pricing is a high oversubscription ratio, and this 
is especially true with wireless.

This level of throughput management should come under the 
reasonable network management definition that service providers 
are allowed to perform. This throttling is also 
application-independent so no selective throttling by application is 
needed. Finally, the throttling is implemented in routing tables 
full time and once programmed, it requires no human interaction.

Reasonable is a rule of man, not rule of law 
construct.  Blocking the pirate CDN was not considered reasonable 
when it was not done by an ILEC.  I would rather allow ISPs to do as 
they please, at risk of displeasing their customers, rather than 
follow rules designed to please a cheapskate pR0n distributor.  And 
banning servers is a good way to keep the average load and thus the 
cost and price down.


Fred Goldstein wrote:
At 8/3/2010 06:24 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
Why would customers installing file servers cause you a problem if 
you limited their throughput to the Terms and Conditions of their 
contract where you would specify the amount of bandwidth that you 
were supplying them and limiting them to?

You could limit throughput neutrally, provided that it limited 
upstream file service and interactive applications like gaming and 
telephony equally.  That's basically what Comcast consented to 
do.  However, those applications usually require a person to be 
there; content distribution runs 7x24.  Their ToS (I'm a customer) 
prohibited file and web servers; the FCC found that unreasonable.

I do believe that if someone had complained about such activities 
on Verizon's or ATT's part, the K-Mart FCC would have found it 
perfectly desirable.

Fred Goldstein wrote:
At 8/3/2010 04:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
That's what I don't understand...  some people are so for Net 
Neutrality, but every unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.

I've long opposed network neutrality rules on grounds that it 
could put most WISPs out of business.  You'd be forced to live by 
the same rules that the urban ILECs and CATVs do, even though 
your cost of both last-mile capacity and middle mile (if rural) 
is much higher. Thus you'd be required to allow customers to 
install file servers at their subscriber locations, even though 
it's much cheaper (overall) to have them at a fiber backbone 
site.  Recall that Vuze, who made the big stink, is a pR0n 
distributor using subscriber-site file servers and home-user 
computers to undercut other CDNs on price.

I think Verizon actually favors such rules, on grounds that FiOS 
is hurt less than most others, including cable, and they'd be 
happy to see WISPs go away.  (When I see them opposing it, I 
think of Bre'r Rabbit and the brier patch.)

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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, there may be hope yet...

[Jack Unger]

Comments inline. 

Fred Goldstein wrote:

  At 8/3/2010 09:03 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
  
  
Fred,

Many WISPs throttle throughput according to the terms of the 
contracted service that each customer purchases. For example, if a 
WISP sells 1 Mb down and 512k up then they limit throughput to 
somewhere near those levels. Under those conditions, a customer can 
have a file or web server and it does not adversely affect the 
overall WISP network performance.

  
  
Sure it does.  Last week's discussion confirmed that the average ISP 
retail residential customer generates a load of about 50-100 kbps.  A 
lot higher when "using" it, near zero at other times.  But a file 
server can pump an Mbps or more all day and night.  The whole trick 
to low residential pricing is a high oversubscription ratio, and this 
is especially true with wireless.
  

Then put a monthly bandwidth cap (or caps) into your Terms of Service
and price your service accordingly. 

  
  
  
This level of throughput management should come under the 
"reasonable network management" definition that service providers 
are allowed to perform. This throttling is also 
application-independent so no selective throttling by application is 
needed. Finally, the throttling is implemented in routing tables 
full time and once programmed, it requires no human interaction.

  
  
"Reasonable" is a "rule of man", not "rule of law" 
construct.  Blocking the pirate CDN was not considered "reasonable" 
when it was not done by an ILEC.  I would rather allow ISPs to do as 
they please, at risk of displeasing their customers, rather than 
follow rules designed to please a cheapskate pR0n distributor.  And 
banning servers is a good way to keep the average load and thus the 
cost and price down.
  

With no rules, what are you going to do when your upstream provider
decides to block or throttle your network for whatever the reason? They
are after all just "doing what they please". Without some kind of
network neutrality protection, there's no law against blocking you,
right?

  

  
  
Fred Goldstein wrote:


  At 8/3/2010 06:24 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
  
  
Why would customers installing file servers cause you a problem if 
you limited their throughput to the Terms and Conditions of their 
contract where you would specify the amount of bandwidth that you 
were supplying them and limiting them to?

  
  You could limit throughput "neutrally", provided that it limited 
upstream file service and interactive applications like gaming and 
telephony equally.  That's basically what Comcast consented to 
do.  However, those applications usually require a person to be 
there; content distribution runs 7x24.  Their ToS (I'm a customer) 
prohibited file and web servers; the FCC found that unreasonable.

I do believe that if someone had complained about such activities 
on Verizon's or ATT's part, the K-Mart FCC would have found it 
perfectly desirable.

  
  
Fred Goldstein wrote:


  At 8/3/2010 04:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
  
  
That's what I don't understand...  some people are so for Net 
Neutrality, but every unhappy incumbent customer is a potential sale.

  
  I've long opposed "network neutrality" rules on grounds that it 
could put most WISPs out of business.  You'd be forced to live by 
the same rules that the urban ILECs and CATVs do, even though 
your cost of both last-mile capacity and middle mile (if rural) 
is much higher. Thus you'd be required to allow customers to 
install file servers at their subscriber locations, even though 
it's much cheaper (overall) to have them at a fiber backbone 
site.  Recall that Vuze, who made the big stink, is a pR0n 
distributor using subscriber-site file servers and home-user 
computers to undercut other CDNs on price.

I think Verizon actually favors such rules, on grounds that FiOS 
is hurt less than most others, including cable, and they'd be 
happy to see WISPs go away.  (When I see them opposing it, I 
think of Bre'r Rabbit and the brier patch.)

 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701

  

  

  
  
  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


  


-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband 

[WISPA] Net Neutrality, RIP

[Andy Trimmell]

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=8277page=3tag=col1;post-8277

 

 

Andy Trimmell - Network Administrator

Precision Data Solutions, LLC

atrimm...@precisionds.com

317.831.3000

http://www.pdswireless.com

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] net neutrality article

[Marco Coelho]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/net-neutrality-plan-would-permit-blocking-bittorrent
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/28/1431214/FCCs-Net-Neutrality-Plan-Blocks-BitTorrent

-- 
Marco C. Coelho
Argon Technologies Inc.
POB 875
Greenville, TX 75403-0875
903-455-5036



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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 article

[RickG]

Do not feed the troll (repeat)

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/net-neutrality-plan-would-permit-blocking-bittorrent

 http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/28/1431214/FCCs-Net-Neutrality-Plan-Blocks-BitTorrent

 --
 Marco C. Coelho
 Argon Technologies Inc.
 POB 875
 Greenville, TX 75403-0875
 903-455-5036



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Net Neutrality: The Canadians Get it Right!

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2714

 

Lets hope the FCC can make a ruling as balanced and appropriate as this one.

 

Matt Larsen

Vistabeam.com




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
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

[Marlon K. Schafer]

ESPN charges enough for it's service that many small players can't afford 
it.

If ESPN can lock you out of it's services, so can google when they choose 
to.
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality


 ?

 On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Marlon K. Schafer 
 o...@odessaoffice.comwrote:

 Tell that to espn.
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality


  Tom,
  Your hypothetical about Comcast, etc... creating private networks is
  unfounded and not likely to happen.  In the end, it misses the point 
  that
  the Internet, from a consumer perspective, is NOT bandwidth and has
 very
  little to do with the bits and bytes that you shuffle around your
 network.
  The Internet IS the edge, it's the applications and users (since so 
  much
  content is peer-generated these days).
 
  Want proof?  Block Google and Facebook for 1 day and see how many 
  people
  care that your service is working :).  Do it for a week and see how
 many
  customers you retain.  Repeat for any of the other apps that your
  customers
  use.  The balance of power, in terms of customer retention, is on the
  application providers side, since, from a customer perspective, the 
  apps
  are
  Internet.
 
  As I recall, the private networks were tried back in the 90s by AOL,
  etc...  they had a user base of millions and lots of premium content 
  (in
  terms of dollar investment, the best content was on AOL, Compuserv,
  Prodigy, etc... for a time).  It didn't matter, the users 
  overwhelmingly
  chose the open Internet.  Even the WISPA crowd has been more profitable
  than
  the guys that chose to do private networks :)
 
  Oh, and there's the small detail that every service provider in the
 nation
  is running their network over public assets: whether it's on the poles,
 in
  the ground, or running over wireless using licensed (leased) or
 unlicensed
  spectrum (which isn't quite the same deal, I realize).  If they want to
  run
  private networks, then they have to do it on land that they own or 
  that
  they compensate the government for appropriately--current pole 
  attachment
  rates and so forth are not applicable to companies that are wanting to
  build
  out solely private networks.
 
  -Clint Ricker
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tom DeReggi
  wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote:
 
  For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is
 
  http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html
 
  We need to realize and seperate two things...
 
  1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an
  idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard 
  to
  combat based on the ideals, and we should recognize that the goal of
 an
  open Internet is not specifically what we are fighting.
  2) The reality that idealistic views dont translate to how the 
  Internet
  Industry really works. And the site's proposed methodology to attempt
  preservation of an open network, infact may be harmful to consumers 
  and
  delivery of most common Internet services from competitive Access
  providers.
  What we need to fight are mechanisms and ideas that harm access
  providers,
  or that prioritize content provider's needs over that of access
  providers.
 
  There is an important thing to realize. One of NetNeutrality's biggest
  advocates is now I think Chief of Staff. (Bruce somebody). 
  NetNeutrality
  will be directly addressed in the new FCC, we can count on that. More 
  so
  than in past commissions.
 
  Over the next 3 months I believe WISPA will need to get actively 
  engaged
  in
  Netneutrality lobbying. It will need to be a combined effort between
  legislative and FCC committees.
  The Legislative committee will need to fight bills being plannedd to 
  be
  introducted to congress, and FCC committee will need to fight for WISP
  rights in soon to come FCC rulemaking.
  It is my belief that government policy makers are timming their 
  efforts
  so
  legislation and FCC rules will come to effect togeather, as 
  legislation
  is
  pointing to the FCC to make rules.
  We can start to lobby legislators now, while bills are government
 working
  groups. And possibly there could  be public hearings, where we might 
  be
  able
  to request participation in them?
  For FCC, we most likely would need to wait for the Notice of PRoposed
  Rule
  making. Allthough ideally, its technically possible to lobby for
 proposed
  rules to never get to rule making stage.
  (although I dont think its likely for that to occur).
 
  We are going to need to decide whether we want to fight the core 
  concept
  all
  togeather, or fight for details and wording that make

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

[Robert West]

Would the Free To Air stuff work at all?  I have some customers who do Free
To Air but I have yet to even look at one of their setups to see what type
of content they are getting.  But is Free To Air also Free to Rebroadcast??!


I tried to deal with Time Warner as just being a reseller of their content
but they just yawned.  I wanted to setup a building to install the
individual digital boxes in for each customer ant Time Warner would just
install in that building as needed.  Then stream the video channel to the
customer.  Not gonna fly with Time Warner.

Anyone else out there doing TV over IP?  How are you setting this up and how
are you obtaining rights to rebroadcast the video content?  Certainly there
HAS to be a group that we can purchase content from.

Bob-




-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

I've looked into doing traditional TV over IP and wireless networks...  You 
can't obtain a license for traditional TV over wireless networks.

I wouldn't mind coming up with a half assed list of places of good video 
content.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:11 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

 I am all too aware of the weakness of wireless networks in regards to
 streaming of video.

 That said, I cannot see how over the top video is a bad thing for
 independent ISPs, even if wireless technology has to make some progress to
 handle it.  It removes triple play as a competitive advantage for your
 competitors and hurts them a LOT more than it costs the independent ISPs.
 If anything, independent ISPs (especially wireline independent ISPs) 
 should
 be advertising Internet access, includes 10 million channels for FREE 
 and
 get people to shift the $1,500-$2,000 a year that they are spending on
 triple play packages over your way.

 -Clint Ricker




 On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:06 AM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is imminent. The questions is: whose network? -RickG

 On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com
 wrote:
  One thing you can bank on, it WILL take hold.
 
  The need for more Bandwidth won't be stopped anytime soon, I believe.
  Eventually most if not all communications will run over the same 
  network,
  which if you think about it, all the communications out there seem to
 touch
  the internet at least in part.
 
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Clint Ricker
  Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:21 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
 
  For the mainstream ISPs (the big RBOCs and MSOs), their bandwidth costs
 are
  very, very low and are a small fraction of their overall costs. 
  However,
  that statement does ignore the costs of perpetually upgrading their
 network
  to handle larger volumes of bandwidth.  From a cost perspective, that 
  is
 the
  main motivation for the big players to shape traffic.  However, even 
  that
 is
  small compared to the potential loss of revenue if over the top video
  takes hold.
 
  -Clint
 
 
 
  On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   It's back
  
   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews
 
  I am just waiting for them to say bitcaps are a no no.  When you think
  about it with a bit cap you cannot really use the Internet to
  completely replace the catv or dish service.  Some consumers I am sure
  are going to say that's not fair and some clueless law makers will
  likely believe them.
 
  I have already heard some 'expert' IT people on blogs brag that
  bandwidth costs ISP's virtually nothing and the only reason for
  bitcaps is to prevent competing video services from taking market
  share.
 
  Matt
 
 
 
 
 


  
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 


  
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 


  
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 


  
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless