Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners

2006-01-13 Thread Peter R.

CP has stopped selling Residential. Period. (That is what I was told).

Regards,

Peter

Charles Wu wrote:


Not to kick a dead horse here, but I heard the other day (from a WISP friend
of mine) that Commpartners has stop installing WISP residential connections
(due to E911 compliance issues) for the time being

This sucks for him since he's already paid the $5k setup fee and his 1500+
wireless customers are all residential =(

Can anyone verify this (right or wrong)?

-Charles

---
WiNOG Austin, TX
March 13-15, 2006
http://www.winog.com 



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners

2006-01-12 Thread Charles Wu
Not to kick a dead horse here, but I heard the other day (from a WISP friend
of mine) that Commpartners has stop installing WISP residential connections
(due to E911 compliance issues) for the time being

This sucks for him since he's already paid the $5k setup fee and his 1500+
wireless customers are all residential =(

Can anyone verify this (right or wrong)?

-Charles

---
WiNOG Austin, TX
March 13-15, 2006
http://www.winog.com 



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- bigdumbpipe providervs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider(html formatted for easier reading)

2006-01-05 Thread Tom DeReggi

Charles,

Some very good points.

However, lets look at it from another angle. What message is the VOIP 
wholesale provider sending, with their currently mentality, for them to 
decide who they will and will not allow to play in the VOIP space?  More or 
less,  I consider CommPartners an RBOC equivellent of VOIP.  They are 
discriminating on which ISPs can and can't use their VOIP.  They are saying, 
we'll give your competitors the Cable Companies and CLECs access to our VOIP 
network to compete against you, but we will not give you access to our VOIP 
network to defend yourselves, unless you PAYS US. Thats like Mafia 
protection money, in my mind.


The CommPartners of the world are starting the war. They decide to take the 
end users for themselves or their preferred partners.


So with Eye for an eye mentality If they restrict me from their network, 
why should I not restrcit them from mine?


This is not an issue of legislation. This is an issue of market pressure. Do 
we support Wholeslae partners that are discriminary to our own industry that 
is our life blood?


You could argue that the CommPartners aren't descriminary because they 
equally charge every one huge initiation fees.  But then again, I could 
argue that that same mentality didn't fly when the Cable Companies denied 
ISPs access to their fiber, arguing they equally gave ISPs the option to pay 
million for the access.  Same principle just different scale.  I could argue 
that I wasn't being descriminary if I equally was charging all VOIP 
providers the same fee for optimization.


What MCI did was more exceptable. They did not disallow partners. They just 
had different plans, based on the partners volume. So the partners could get 
better terms as the increased their dedication to the business and volume. 
But didn't need to abandon the initial model when they reached that size.


At what point does a service provider (VOIP) get to the size that they have 
a strategic advantage above all other providers in the space, that they 
should be treated the same as a connectivity wholesale provider / monopoly 
such as a RBOC?


The second a vendor of any type, starts saying I'm going to allow these guys 
but not these guys, things can get ugly.  Its not a problem if the ISP 
mutually does not select that wholesale provider. But what when that 
provider gains enough market share, and the ISP would have wanted that 
partnership to be competitive?  In my mind, someone is either with me, or 
against me.  And if not with me, they are a threat, because their success 
could help my competitors, and this is a ruthless competitive world.  If 
someone is not with me, than in my mind they are on their own, and anything 
goes, because I have no obligation to support someone that has chosen not to 
support me by terms I consider fair.


I think everyone in this industry has to think really hard who their allies 
are and who is their competition is. Supporting the competition, in the long 
run could mean death to yourself eventually.  We need to support the people 
that support us as an industry.


I am not passing judgement on which companies should or shouldn't be 
supported, nor am I passing judgement on the method that should be used to 
support or fight back against companies that are our competitors.


I'm just saying that the purpose of groups like WISPA, is that there is 
strength in numbers and unity. And we need to use that unity to demand 
competitive advantage in this industry.


I've seen little negotiations/advantages won for the membership benefit by 
leveraging WISPA's weight as a group. I'd like to see more of that take 
place.  I personally, can;t use WISPA's weight to move forward my 
negotiations independantly, because I am not authorized to do so on WISPA's 
behave.


This is not meant to be a complaint regarding WISPA, just a suggestion on 
possible goals for WISPA.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:34 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- bigdumbpipe 
providervs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider(html formatted for 
easier reading)



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

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

 beating chest  flailing arms wildly   :-P
/snip

Well said (note, I am still undecided on which side of the fence to sit on)
To summarize, the statement could be as follows:

I built this network with my blood, sweat and tears, and I'll be @[EMAIL 
PROTECTED] if
I'm

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

2006-01-05 Thread Tom DeReggi

Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination. 

Well that depends how you do it and look at it.
I do not believe in outright blocking completely. Allowing the call to go 
through in some capacity, does not hurt the consumer hard. 911 must still go 
through,etc.  However, I pefer to suggest blocking by slowing down traffic. 
As a result only the QOS of the call goes down. Which incourages the 
Provider to pay up or play fair, for them to ahve adequate QOS, and 
equivellent service to the premium service I offer my clients with our own 
service.  Do you really feel you should have to give competitors better 
service possibly than you give your own paying clients? I'd control it so my 
clients lways has a distinquishable improved quality of service.


Is that wrong? Whats the difference really from prioritizing traffic versus 
slowing traffic? In directly it the same results. If I prioritize my 
traffic, by default the others traffic gets shoved behind and slowed, if I 
purposely slow down competitor's traffic it reserves bandwdith so that my 
customers do not get a degrated service level inadvertently.   Slowing down 
may be a bit more agressive, but noe the less its the same result. The 
reasons is that by slowing down competitors traffic, there is a larger 
chance that the priority speed given to my subscriber will actually work. 
Its protection measures. Prioritzing on the other hand is not always doable 
based on limitations on the technology and nature of TCPIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb 
pipeprovidervs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for 
easier reading)




On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote:

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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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

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


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


SBC started it, now BellSouth is getting into the act. Two articles (1, 2) 
highlight comments made by William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth, about how 
he'd really like

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

2006-01-05 Thread Tom DeReggi

Again, they should be held accountable for what they have built with
PUBLIC MONEY.

I also fully agree with that above statement. However, not every network 
operator has built their network with public money or monopoly subsidy.  I 
personally invested close to a million dollars of my personal money to build 
my network. I have every right to optimize the chances and ways to get a 
speedy recovery of that investment.  Its an asset I own and paid for. It has 
nothing to do with what a consumer deserves to have, ISP's rights, or LEC's 
rights.  Companies that are solely independant and do not get to recieve 
subsidies, monopoly protection, USF funds, or public money, should not have 
to be restricted by the same rules as companies that do.  Thats a big 
differenciator in this discussion.  My views are different based on the 
situation of which companies are involved and preferencial benefits they've 
recieved or not..


Its no different than an owner of a football team. Because they spent the 
big bucks to own the football franchise, not only do they have the right to 
sell seats, but they have the rights to sell parking, and the rights to 
re-broadcast it.  Quite honestly, the need to watch football, I believe is 
just as importnat to the nations male population, as it is for them to have 
broadband access.  They seem to have the right to optimize the ways they get 
their return on their investments in their business.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb 
pipeprovidervs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for 
easier reading)




On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote:

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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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

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


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


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

RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumbpipeprovidervs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (htmlformatted for easier reading)

2006-01-05 Thread Charles Wu
Again, they should be held accountable for what they have built with
PUBLIC MONEY.

IMO, it's nearly impossible to do a 1/2 and 1/2 type of model
I doubt there is any service provider out there who HAS NOT benefited in
some manner from PUBLIC MONEY at some time (or who would want to close the
door to access this opportunity)

Remember, PUBLIC MONEY includes Erate / RUS Loans / Economic Development
Grants / Tax Credits / etc (or the ability to access those types of
contracts)

Imagine how burdensome it'd be if, in order to do connecitivity business
with a government entity, you would have to submit your network to some sort
of open access audit

it's either all regulated, or no regulation (now, in a non-regulated
environment, free-market economics may spawn a market niche of open access
regulated-like free access networks, but that's a whole other debate)

-Charles

---
WiNOG Austin, TX
March 13-15, 2006
http://www.winog.com 

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipeprovidervs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (htmlformatted for easier reading)

2006-01-05 Thread Tom DeReggi
f of our service. Can we all just start 
sellling licenses to get around network neutrality legislation? If one 
person can buy a license in other trades, why can we not sell it as a 
license?

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


This is OK, because it does not state the QOS 
guarantee that the provider woyuld need to provide for that application. 
Therefore slowing down some traffic as the provider felt appropriate would be 
allowed.

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

I fully agree with this except, it needs to be further 
defined to include who is classified as someone offering Internet access. 
Are you saying that from a Most Money Machine, I should be allowed to check my 
Email? Its is a network to. What makes my WISP any different than the 
MOney Machine Most network? I do not think "Broadband" and "network" should be 
bundled into the same thing as Internet Access. Internet access is just 
one value added service that a network provider may elect to add to its services 
for its subscribers. Internet access is not required for a network. The network 
may be done for other purposes. I'm actually aware of many networks that 
specifically restrict their users from being connected to the Internet from the 
same PC that uses their service, if they connect to their network, for security 
reasons.I believe that if a provider brands themselves as selling 
"Internet Access" thenmaybe they need to conform to a set of guideline 
that rule what they can and can not block, because they are a "internet Access" 
provider. What this means though is, I can sell a customer access to my 
network to pass VOIP between their offices or to the PSTN network through my 
termination provider, as long as I'm not selling them Internet access 
also.And then if by default I route all VOIP traffic across my 
private VOIP section of my network I should be able to get away with jsutifying 
a technical reason why I can't pass the subscribers VOIP data to the Internet, 
because otherwise I could not share the same network with my VOIP only services 
that don't use the Internet. I can't have the port routing two palces at 
once at the same time, unless I added a huge management headache of also 
trackingsource and destination routing with the port. By I could argue 
that technology does not exist yet and would possible cause unbearable latency 
that would prevent the service from working. What this section says is 
that I can not be jsut a phone company anymore that only does VOICE. I now 
am requireed to be an Internet provider also. Power companies have 
networks. Are they now going to be forced to offer INternet access as well 
because they are a network operator? 

This should be changed to Consumers should be entitled 
to access the lawful INternet content of their choice, when purchasing "internet 
Access" from their network provider, provided that there is not a technical 
limitationpreventing that or doing so does not unnecessarily restrict the 
other "non-Internet" services offered by the provider. This being done 
with the point that the same network may be sued for different purposes and 
service offering, and should be required to not require providers to 
unnecessarilly build two parallel network in the same area, when it can be 
shared, and with the undetstanding that TCP/IP protocols have been adopted for 
network operators regardless of wether they are offering "Internet 
Services".

Network 
Neutrality Broadband Challenge
Network Neutrality is the concept that network operators 
provide free and non-discriminatory transport on their networks between the 
endpoints of the Internet. This has been a basic concept and function of the 
Internet since it was invented, and is adopted by the FCC in these four 
principles to ensure that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, 
affordable and accessible to all consumers:
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet 
contentof their choice; 
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services 
of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; 

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

Now, lets open the floor for discussion...
Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless 
Broadband



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Charles Wu 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:43 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners 
  -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider 
  (htmlformatted for easier reading)
  
  snipYou 
  seem to be taking this beyond what anyone has stated. There m

Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe provider vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider

2006-01-05 Thread Tom DeReggi

Charles,

Just to be clear, we don't currently block or slow anything. We don;t 
technically have a VOIP service of our own yet. I'm simply debating the 
options. I am using Commpartners as an example, only because I had recent 
discussions with them this past summer, and they are fresh in my mind, but I 
am not targeting Commpartners directly in any way.  My comments could apply 
to any VOIP wholesale provider, and should be interpreted as such.  Port 
blocking is a very touchy subject right now, and in my mind a very important 
one that may define the outcome of VOIP and relationships between partners. 
A VOIP offering will become a significant part of my business, as it will be 
for most others as well, and I need to have a clear plan of how I'm going to 
go about competing in the space.


Also on a side note, the reason I'm a little over POed on the Fee thing, was 
that I spent a month testing their service and negotiating terms and stuff. 
A whole marketing campaign was created around their service, lots of time 
spent. Then right after I got my first customer and signed the agreement and 
ready to fax it over, I saw the fine print that mentioned a $5000 fee, which 
I was never told about upfront or that was never mentioned once in our 
conversation over the month. So I got blind sided with the $5000 fee at the 
last minute. I thought they should have disclosed that to me before we 
started working with them, not a month later after the time was spent.  SO 
then I developed the high and mighty attitude, that why should I pay a fee, 
I probably had just got pretty close to costing me $5000 in time just 
building my marketing plan.  They should have waived it, at that point.  The 
must have figured I'd be more likely to pay it after spedning all the time. 
I don't like to be squeezed that way. And the more I thought about it I 
started to boil thinking over the situation.


I'm not really 100% sure what I believe yet on wether blocking should be 
done or not. But I don't like people that play that way. It reminds me of 
the high and might Covad, where what ever they say goes attitude.  We are 
really only going to get one choice to get VOIP legislation done right, the 
way thatwill benefit us all.  Wether the topic is what wholesale partners we 
should support, or wether its right to block traffic, the issues all apply 
to WISP's future of using VOIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:49 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe provider 
vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider



snip
performance to their VOIP servers over our network. Think about it, do you
think I'm going to allow the same performance to our competitive VOIP
provider as I do to our own VOIP services? By getting us to be a Partner for

them, we'd optimize them for our own benefit, and indirectly Comm Parnters
would guarantee that our network
/snip

Not that I'm trying to start anything...but this is pretty dangerous ground
to tread on
If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of one's own
traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that much different than

FCC fines telco for VoIP Port Blocking
http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/60405214

SBC Says Google should pay to use our network
http://techdirt.com/articles/20051031/0354228_F.shtml

In a larger context, it may come down to a strategy of providing big dumb
pipes (like what the phone companies have done) or becoming end-to-end
connectivity/content companies (like what the cable-cos have done)

-Charles


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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe provider vs. end-to-end connectivity/content provider

2006-01-04 Thread Charles Wu
snip
performance to their VOIP servers over our network. Think about it, do you 
think I'm going to allow the same performance to our competitive VOIP 
provider as I do to our own VOIP services? By getting us to be a Partner for

them, we'd optimize them for our own benefit, and indirectly Comm Parnters 
would guarantee that our network
/snip

Not that I'm trying to start anything...but this is pretty dangerous ground
to tread on
If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of one's own
traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that much different than

FCC fines telco for VoIP Port Blocking
http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/60405214

SBC Says Google should pay to use our network
http://techdirt.com/articles/20051031/0354228_F.shtml

In a larger context, it may come down to a strategy of providing big dumb
pipes (like what the phone companies have done) or becoming end-to-end
connectivity/content companies (like what the cable-cos have done)

-Charles


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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe provider vs. end-to-end connectivity/content provider

2006-01-04 Thread Butch Evans

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote:

If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of 
one's own traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that 
much different than


These are nowhere NEAR the same thing.  Let me give an example.

Let's say that my webserver is something I want to be considered 
priority over all other hosts on my network.  I simply set up my QOS 
to make that traffic priority over ANY other traffic on my network. 
Same thing if it is a VOIP server.  I am not changing the traffic in 
any way, nor am I restricting their traffic.  I am simply insuring 
(as far as I can) the traffic that I want to be priority on MY 
network.  That is not what happened with that other case (and you 
know this).  If I do what I described above, can Google come in and 
sue me because THEIR web traffic is not prioritized on my network? 
Not at all.  Having said that, if Google wants to come in and pay me 
$XXX (maybe a couple more X's), then you can BET that I WILL add 
priority to their traffic.  Not sure how you see any kind of 
parallel between adding priority to one traffic and not another, vs 
blocking a certain class of traffic.



FCC fines telco for VoIP Port Blocking
http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/60405214


--
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe provider vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider

2006-01-04 Thread Charles Wu
snip
Not sure how you see any kind of 
parallel between adding priority to one traffic and not another, vs 
blocking a certain class of traffic.
/snip

The second seems almost a natural progression of the first

Take for example the CLEC/ILEC models

Back in the 90s, the attitude amongst ILECs was adding priority to ILECs
services and just make life miserable for competition 
In 2005, it has evolved into @[EMAIL PROTECTED] those CLECs, we'll just cut em 
off
completely.

WISPs, IMO aren't that much different than the ILEC from an infrastructure
standpoint (I would imagine that 10+ years from now...there will be markets
where WISPs have developed a monopoly by forcing the copper and cable guys
out of the market)

This discussion is almost a parallel analogy of the ILEC/CLEC debate -- in
this case, it's still boils down to the why should I just let you run
advanced $$$ generating services over MY NETWORK

Compare
The concept of allowing Internet/Broadband (advanced service) over a
telephone line (infrastructure)

Vs.

The concept of allowing VoIP (advanced service) over a WISP connection
(infrastructue) 

Say a partner (aka commpartners) signs a deal with me that makes me want to
feature them as a preferred provider (e.g., a residual, lump some, etc) --
such a deal would have some sort of performance incentive built in (e.g.,
they would just hand me a check for $10k and say, put us on your
website...marketing / reseller programs are all success-based these days,
meaning that you pay for click-throughs, new activations, etc)

That said, I (the service provider) will have some sort of incentive to
promote my partner to the customer -- in addition to featuring them on
marketing (e.g., stuffing additional envelopes, putting them on a splash
page), I may endeaver to ensure that their traffic type performs better on
my network.

Now, there are 2 ways of making things better -- 1 is to improve the
traffic flow of my partners, the other would be to degrade the traffic
flow of the competition

If you take this line reasoning a few iterations further, it can easily
become a that @[EMAIL PROTECTED] competitor is riding my network for free to 
access my
customers, so I'm just gonna cut them off type of discussion

-Charles

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Butch Evans
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe provider
vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider


On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote:

If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of
one's own traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that 
much different than

These are nowhere NEAR the same thing.  Let me give an example.

Let's say that my webserver is something I want to be considered 
priority over all other hosts on my network.  I simply set up my QOS 
to make that traffic priority over ANY other traffic on my network. 
Same thing if it is a VOIP server.  I am not changing the traffic in 
any way, nor am I restricting their traffic.  I am simply insuring 
(as far as I can) the traffic that I want to be priority on MY 
network.  That is not what happened with that other case (and you 
know this).  If I do what I described above, can Google come in and 
sue me because THEIR web traffic is not prioritized on my network? 
Not at all.  Having said that, if Google wants to come in and pay me 
$XXX (maybe a couple more X's), then you can BET that I WILL add 
priority to their traffic.  

 FCC fines telco for VoIP Port Blocking 
 http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/60405214

-- 
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe provider vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider

2006-01-04 Thread Butch Evans

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote:

If you take this line reasoning a few iterations further, it can 
easily become a that @[EMAIL PROTECTED] competitor is riding my network for 
free to access my customers, so I'm just gonna cut them off type 
of discussion


Let me show you again what I responded to:


If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of
one's own traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that
much different than


You seem to be taking this beyond what anyone has stated.  There may 
be those that say the things that you claim above, however what you 
said was that ...preference of one's own traffic...is not that much 
different than... and you went on to show a link to a story that 
was NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing.  That is what I was pointing 
out.  Not your few iterations further argument (which, BTW, I 
think is out of proportion, too).  In other words, you are pointing 
out something to which I did not respond.  You are defending 
something I am not attacking.


--
Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

2006-01-04 Thread Charles Wu
Title: Message



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

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

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

Now, lets open the floor for discussion...

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

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

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


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

2006-01-04 Thread Mac Dearman

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

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


 beating chest  flailing arms wildly   :-P

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





Butch Evans wrote:


On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote:

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



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


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



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


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



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



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



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


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



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

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



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


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



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



Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



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


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



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


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



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

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



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

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

2006-01-04 Thread Charles Wu
snip
  The way I see it is this:   (automatic insertion of my .o2 cents)

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

 beating chest  flailing arms wildly   :-P
/snip

Well said (note, I am still undecided on which side of the fence to sit on)
To summarize, the statement could be as follows:

I built this network with my blood, sweat and tears, and I'll be @[EMAIL 
PROTECTED] if
I'm gonna submit to governmental regulation that forces me to ensure the
competitors / others can freeload off of my hard work

However, there are several things to be aware of when taking on this
position

For starters, it is worth noting that generally speaking, very few of the
more successful (I define success in terms of profitability) WISPs are
actually pureplay WISPs (now, there will always be an exception, someone
like Matt Larsen or Dorian Banks comes to mind) -- but the majority of guys
(e.g., Scriv, R Harnish, Marlon, Travis Johnson, Sam Rozenthal, Paul Diem,
etc) can be better classified as connectivity / networking service
providers...broadband wireless, along with DSL, dial-up, computer support,
etc just happens one means of servicing a paying customer (basically, it
boils down to cost economics, as in I, the operator, will use whatever
technology is best to provide an acceptable level of service to meet my
customer's requirements)

However, my options will change dramatically (for better or worse is a
different debate) over the next few years if we are to support the ideas of
the above statement.  Going along this line of reasoning (pushing towards
intermodal competition) -- it's only a matter of time before the ILEC can
theoretically cut off all of my resold services (in this case, dial-up, DSL,
T1s, ISDN, Frame Relay) and block any/and all access you have to their
network

So, the thought that needs to be remembered is is that if I start giving
preference (traffic wise) to certain partners/vendors/alliances because they
will pay me money, I am setting the precendence for losing access to the
copper infrastructure (no more dial-up, T1s, DSL).

Now, the big question worth debating is what's better off for the
operator...e.g., will the additional revenue from collecting tolls/fees for
premium value added services offset the loss from being denied access

-Charles


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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mac Dearman
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumbpipe
providervs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for
easier reading)



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





Butch Evans wrote:

 On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote:

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


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

 Read the following article and tell me what you think

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_

 their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full


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

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


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

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


 Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination.  For instance, I block
 LOTS of traffic.  I block ALL traffic to and from known hacker 
 havens.  I do not accept mail from certain servers.  I only allow 
 certain volumes of P2P traffic to flow over my network.  These things 
 enhance my service for my subscribers

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

2006-01-04 Thread John Scrivner
I am not too concerned. It is only about $40K a month in recurring 
monthly revenues off the SBC network!   :-)I do worry what the phone 
company will do but I am nearly making as much off of wireless now as I 
am off the ILEC copper so in a year or so I could snip snip the little 
copper habit I still have going on. Right now I would obviously suffer 
some serious withdrawal. By the way, I resisted the DSL temptation 
completely. I do not have a single DSL on my billing. I do have a few 
T1s and several hundred dialup connections. I tend to think the tariff 
regulated services will be around for a while yet. Maybe it is wishful 
thinking on my part?

Scriv


However, there are a lot of people out there (for example Scrivner) that are
still dependent on the local ILEC for a lot of services (for example,
accessing copper to offer dial-up, DSL, T1 or a slew of other connectivity
solutions.  In his case, there is a concern because he stands to lose a
significant amount of business should the ILEC get the ability to
arbitrarily cut him off

On the extreme side, one CLEC, XO, seeing this situation, has decided to
ditch the UNE access business and focus exclusively on wireless
(old news): http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/110805-xo-spinoff.html

-Charles

---
WiNOG Austin, TX
March 13-15, 2006
http://www.winog.com 



 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

2006-01-04 Thread George

John Scrivner wrote:
I am not too concerned. It is only about $40K a month in recurring 
monthly revenues off the SBC network!   :-)I do worry what the phone 
company will do but I am nearly making as much off of wireless now as I 
am off the ILEC copper so in a year or so I could snip snip the little 
copper habit I still have going on. Right now I would obviously suffer 
some serious withdrawal. By the way, I resisted the DSL temptation 
completely. I do not have a single DSL on my billing. I do have a few 
T1s and several hundred dialup connections. I tend to think the tariff 
regulated services will be around for a while yet. Maybe it is wishful 
thinking on my part?

Scriv


Not wishful thinking.

2+ years ago we switched away from Qwest, our ILEC, to competitive clecs 
and dumped DSL and T-1. Wasn't enough T-1's and what we did have we 
converted to wireless. We had a fiber OC3 from Qwest. And support wise, 
DSL was almost as bad as dial up.


Now the only bill I get from a telephone company, is from clecs, and 
that is for a few pots for our office and a managed modem pool from 
another clec, and the voip service naturally  isn't Qwest.


My upstream is a regional fiber carrier who delivers me fiber ethernet.
Our broadband is all wireless and we'll be adding pretty soon.

Significant savings in avoiding the ILEC.

George


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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