Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-11 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Here here!  That's why we've ALWAYS been honest with our customers.  We bill 
per bit not per mbps.  Go as fast as your situation will allow but don't get 
stupid with the connection.


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


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



- Original Message - 
From: Tony Weasler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



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

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

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

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

- Tony

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

Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

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

-Charles

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-11 Thread Travis Johnson

Hi,

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


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


Travis
Microserv

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

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


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


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



- Original Message - From: Tony Weasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



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

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

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

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

- Tony

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


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

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


-Charles


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-11 Thread Scott Reed




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

Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net

-- Original Message 
---

From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 


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


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



 Hi, 
 
 

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

 

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

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

flat rate. 
 
 

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

is that water and electricity only flows into the property with  
 

Internet traffic, it goes both ways. ;) 
 
 

Travis 
 

Microserv 
 
 

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

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

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

 but don't get stupid with the connection. 
 

 
 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 
 

 laters, 
 

 Marlon 
 

 (509) 982-2181                  
                 Equipment sales 

 

 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                
    Consulting services 
 

 42846865 (icq)                  
                  And I run my own 
wisp! 
 

 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) 
 

 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless 
 

 www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 - Original Message - From: Tony Weasler  
 

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 

 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
 

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

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

 

 
 

 
 

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

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

 

 access.  Other companies followed suit and assumed that they would 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 their customers' actions. 
 

 
 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 leave the market.  It really can be that simple. 
 

 
 

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

 

 providers are disclosing the information necessary for consumers to 

 

 choose amongst the competitors.  Micro-managing the various 
services 
 

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

 

 the complexity of the regulations and adds unnecessary expense for the 

 

 consumers and a barrier to entry for future competitors. 
 

 
 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 issue.  Time will tell: 
 

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

 
 

 - Tony 
 

 
 

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

 
 

 Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis 
 

 
 

 Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any  

 

 different? 
 

 
 

 -Charles 
 

 
 

 --  
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
 

 
 

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

 
 

--  
 

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
 
 

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
 

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

 

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






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-11 Thread Jeromie Reeves

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

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


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


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


Jeromie



Travis
Microserv

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

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


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


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



- Original Message - From: Tony Weasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



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

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

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

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

- Tony

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


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

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


-Charles



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-11 Thread Tom DeReggi
Personally, I'm not sure whats wrong with selling broadband at a flat rate, 
and then have an add on option for people who want to pay per bit, to 
actually get the throughput they need above the misrepresented commodity 
marketing speeds.  Someone agrees to be an average, and takes the slow down 
when they aren't or they agree to pay.  Thats why we bandwdith manage by 
priority. Give em the speed if its available, slow everyone down equally.


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


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



Hi,

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


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


Travis
Microserv

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

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


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


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



- Original Message - From: Tony Weasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



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

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

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

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

- Tony

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


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

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


-Charles


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-11 Thread Travis Johnson

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

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


Travis
Microserv

Jeromie Reeves wrote:


Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

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


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



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


Jeromie



Travis
Microserv

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

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


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


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

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



- Original Message - From: Tony Weasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



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

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

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

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

- Tony

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


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

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


-Charles




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

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

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-10 Thread RickG
True, they are too separate points but are related in that it will
take both commodity status and total necessity before it can be
treated as such.

On 11/9/05, Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, RickG wrote:

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

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

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

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-10 Thread George

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


George



Butch Evans wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, George wrote:



The phone absolutely has saved lives.

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



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



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



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



As for tv, ok.



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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-10 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, George wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-10 Thread Charles Wu
Butch,

Technically, none of the necessities are ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to survival

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

-Charles

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



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


On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, George wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-10 Thread Ray Jean
Well, as far what is necessary and what is not... Being a woman.. I'm 
watching and taking care of 2 networks in 2 different cities 70 miles 
apart... using the internet and phone.. Landline. Washing clothes, cleaning 
house, cooking a meal. Watching TV. Had a T-1 go out in the furthest city.. 
None of this is possible without electricity.. So a candle, shooting a 
rabbit, ugh!.. but they are 2 deer about 25 feet from my kitchen window. 
Guess I could shoot one of them.


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

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, George wrote:


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


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

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

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

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-10 Thread Butch Evans
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Ray  Jean wrote:

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

:-)

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

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

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

My point in 2 words:  KEEP FLAPPING.

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-10 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

And for anyone that wants to dig deeper into it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=natural+vs.+unnatural+monopolyhl=enlr=

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



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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Charles Wu wrote:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

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


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

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

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

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-10 Thread Tom DeReggi

Good point George.

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

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


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge



Tom DeReggi wrote:


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



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


The phone absolutely has saved lives.

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


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


As for tv, ok.


Sincerely

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

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

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


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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-09 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Charles Wu wrote:

Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-09 Thread Charles Wu
snip
For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed for basic
survival in the city.  Granted, these services have not always been
available, but it is expected by all Americans that if they move somewhere,
they can get those services.  Most people would not survive without these
services.  Tell me how internet access fits that description.
/snip

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

-Charles

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-09 Thread RickG
I agree with George. Internet access is practically a necessity now,
especially for businesses. It wont be much longer and broadband will
be expected in order to do any kind of business. It may not be for
survival of your life, but certainly it will hurt you financially.

On 11/9/05, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 snip
 For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed for basic
 survival in the city.  Granted, these services have not always been
 available, but it is expected by all Americans that if they move somewhere,
 they can get those services.  Most people would not survive without these
 services.  Tell me how internet access fits that description.
 /snip

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

 -Charles

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


 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-09 Thread Tom DeReggi
. Whats any different with 
broadband. You don't see the colledges lowering the price of colledge 
tuition down to $19.95 a month.  They keep the va;lue high at $20,000 a 
year. They don't lower the value, they jsut expect the country to foot the 
bill.  If the governement thinks Broadband is so important for EVERYONE, 
even if everyone can;'t afford it, then let the governement foot the bill 
with grants to broadband providers.  Let me charge the $50 a month that need 
to be charged to make sure the broadband offered is supported and delivered 
with the highest standard that consumers need. Just send me the grant check!


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc





Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

-Charles

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-09 Thread A. Huppenthal
. The applications are 
limitless. why shouldn't the connection have a value so much lower 
than the applications thatrely on the connection?


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


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


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc





Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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



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

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

services.  Tell me how internet access fits that description.
/snip

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

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

-Charles

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-09 Thread George

Tom DeReggi wrote:


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



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


The phone absolutely has saved lives.

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

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


As for tv, ok.


Sincerely

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-09 Thread Peter R.

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-09 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, RickG wrote:

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

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-09 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Tom DeReggi wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yup.

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

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

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

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

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

AMEN!  Preach on!

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

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-09 Thread Butch Evans
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, George wrote:

The phone absolutely has saved lives.

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

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

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

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

As for tv, ok.

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread Frank Muto
Just passing on some information that may be of interest to anyone.
Entitlement vs. laws, and a company's TOS/AUP I'm sure are all involved in
one form or another, as with anything else concerning the use of a network
to access the Internet or other service.

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



Frank





- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

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

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



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread George

Couple of thoughts on this.

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


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


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


George





John Scrivner wrote:

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


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


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

John Scrivner


Frank Muto wrote:

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

the NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge.

NYCwireless is challenging every company that provides broadband 
services in

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

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

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




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

http://YourISPWebsite/neutral.html.


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



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread John Scrivner
I can see it now. We will soon be charging for termination and 
origination of IP traffic on networks. Just like long distance phone 
calls used to be. Yaykill me now.

Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:


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

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



Frank





- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]



 


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

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

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


   



 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists

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

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

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


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


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Charles Wu wrote:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

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

-Charles

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




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


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

Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:

 

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


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




Frank





- Original Message -
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]




   


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

states:

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


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



  

 




   



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread RickG
LOL Frank! Give'em their eggs over hard cause they'll never take it
the easy way!
I agree with your sediments!

On 11/7/05, Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Just passing on some information that may be of interest to anyone.
 Entitlement vs. laws, and a company's TOS/AUP I'm sure are all involved in
 one form or another, as with anything else concerning the use of a network
 to access the Internet or other service.

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



 Frank





 - Original Message -
 From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread Peter R.

John Scrivner wrote:

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

Scriv


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


REgards,

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread Tony Weasler
A modern marketing mistake created this mess.  A company started to
sell a product that it was incapable of delivering: unlimited network
access.  Other companies followed suit and assumed that they would
never be compelled to make good on their promise.  Now, instead of
admitting that they were wrong, most providers are trying to redefine
the word 'unlimited' through legal documents that attempt to restrict
their customers' actions.

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

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

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

 - Tony

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread Jeromie Reeves

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


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


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

for more then a short time.



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


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


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


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





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


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





Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Charles Wu wrote:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

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


-Charles

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


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


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

Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:

 

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


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




Frank





- Original Message -
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]




  


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

states:

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


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



 





  






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread Tom DeReggi
The worst thing that an ISP or WISP can do is to support these things. The 
reason, is that if providers create the perception that this can happen and 
can be controlled, (networks to be open for what ever legal purpose), than 
there is absolutely no reason that the government should not keep supporting 
the ILECs and Cable companies to have preferencial treatment to expand their 
networks and take over more and more of the end users as monopolies. The 
monopolies have more financiaing and subsidies to full full FCC's biggest 
criteria to get broadband to EVRYONE.  Why not support the heavy players 
(monopolies) if they are best apt to reach the largest number of americans 
sooner?  If open access will be maintained, and content not blocked, what is 
the harm? It will only mean that Independant ISPs will go our of business or 
become more scarse, but content providers will be safe?  This is false!!! 
Once the Monopolies have control of the end users and the market, they will 
make the rules, no matter what Congress or the FCC try to inforce. Just like 
Microsoft makes the rules today in applications bundled with its OS, 
indirectly beating the governemnts legal action against them regarding 
browser.  When all the competition is wiped out, when the monopolie smake 
their own rules, what could the governemnt really do to enforce anything. 
What do you do when the private corporation (monoply) gets bigger than 
governement so to speak.  Then the next wave start, the waive to take over 
content as well.  Content providers are safe today for one reason and one 
reason only, there are MANY ISPs, so no single ISP or MONOPOLY has unfair 
leverage against the content providers.  The tables will turn once the 
mopnpolies control the market. The bottom line is that content can be 
provided by any one, any where, at any given time.  Access to the end user 
on the other hand can only be provided by one individual, the one the 
consumer has connected with.  Because of this in a show down, where one 
provider blocks another, the Monopoly that own the last mile link to the 
custoemr will win, because they can instantly give the end user an alternate 
choice of content.  The content provider can not give the consumer and 
instant alternate choice for a last mile provider.


Owning the end user connection (by many ISPs) is KEY to the success of fair 
play on the Internet.  This is the reason congress and the FCC MUST support 
Independant ISPs and WISPs, and not give unfair competitive advantage to 
monopolies.  Making rules that content must stay open, is jsut a fake 
advantage to give Monopolies a reason to justify why its safe to trust them 
to take over the world.


I am NOT a monopoly hatter, I believe the world is a better place because 
they are here to quickly serve the millions of end users that would not be 
served in a timely manner with out them, but to give them unfair advantage, 
and not guaranteeing that independants as a group can hold on to a large 
part of the market, is the most foolish thing that could ever happen. And 
thats the way congress and the FCC are going.


The message needs to get out, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to guarantee, detect, 
and inforce fair open content and practices, and for that reason it is 
impairative for national security and the consumer, that choice of last mile 
broadband providers continue to exist for them.


What should be happening is NOT to suggest that the rules and laws change 
for controlling open access across someone's private controlled network, but 
instead, heavy lobbying taking the words that SBC said to point living 
proof, that the risks are right in front of us, if things continue the 
direction they are going.


On a side note... In no way do I support someone else controlling who I can 
let on my network and to do what. I deserve the right to force consumers to 
purchase my service and not to steal it by sharing one of my client's 
circuits.  I believe their can be many advanatages to giving permission for 
users to share bandwidth of an ISP even for free, but that should be a 
choice for the provider to decide and waiver pros and cons of. Giving the 
right for someone to steal your bandwidth or use it without p[aying for it 
is jsut plain ludicris.


Let me give an example... Just recently one of my towns supported a FREE 
hotspot in the back yard of one of my cell sites (for paid service), 
covering about a square half mile.  The government agreed to pay the monthly 
fee for the Internet connection, and landlords donated the roof space, and a 
private non-profit paid for the equipment.  What was ironic was the 
broadband connection was a DSL line, which most likely has an acceptable use 
policy NOT TO SHARE TO END USERS.  So the governemnt publically indorsed 
stealing service (from the DSL provider).  I could have given away free 
access myself, If I wanted to steal service to give away.  I instead did it 
the legal way, and responsible way.  Whats ironic 

RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread Charles Wu
The elecric company doesn't care what you do with their electricity... The
gas company doesn't care what you do with their gas... The water company
doesn't care what you do with your water...

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



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

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

-Charles


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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread John Scrivner
So Charles, start yourself a usage based only operation and let us 
know how that works out for you.

Scriv


Charles Wu wrote:


Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

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

-Charles

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




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


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

Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:

 

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


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




Frank





- Original Message -
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]




   


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

states:

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


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



  

 




   


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread Charles Wu
snip
So Charles, start yourself a usage based only operation and let us 
know how that works out for you.
/snip

Lol...

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

-Charles

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



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


Scriv


Charles Wu wrote:

Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis

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

-Charles

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



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


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


Frank Muto wrote:

  

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

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



Frank





- Original Message -
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 



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

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

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


   

  

 



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

2005-11-07 Thread RickG
Since 1997 when we rolled out the first broadband in the area, I've
been saying we'd eventually bill by the bit. I actually did so in 1999
using an Alot box but only for the bandwidth hogs. I still say it will
be mainstream one day. In fact, I can see the bandwidth costing more
depending on the type  QOS. How about video costing more than VOIP,
etc? It makes too much sense and it's just a matter of time.

On 11/7/05, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 snip
 So Charles, start yourself a usage based only operation and let us
 know how that works out for you.
 /snip

 Lol...

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

 -Charles

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



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


 Scriv


 Charles Wu wrote:

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

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

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

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

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

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