Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-06 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)


 While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what
 will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband
 providers network.

 If there is any application that I can think of that changes the rules
 of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say you sold
 a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no ISP has
 sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a small
 percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or had in
 mind that this type of usage would be common place when he first sold
 his services and set pricing.

 Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if we
 all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows
 movies-television shows at the same time across our network.
 That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video have
 a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to both
 our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee?

It's not Hollywood Video, it's YOUR CUSTOMER using your network.

Only your customer owes you, nobody else.

Are you prepared to tell your customer... We provide internet connections,
but block the sites we don't want you to access..?




North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-


 Anyone else want to argue this?

 It's a good subject that we should be discussing.

 George

 Jack Unger wrote:
  Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers
  (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the
  Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming
  that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I
  understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all
  unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic,
  unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I
  support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet.
 
  http://www.savetheinternet.com/
 
  As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I
  urge each one of you to:
 
  1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/
 
  2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First
  Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the
  American Constitution - Freedom of Speech.
 
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
 
  3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality
 
  4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save
  the Internet.
 
  5. If you disagree, take action to support your position.
 
  6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your
  position.
 
 
  So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have
  signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six
  are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs.
 
  http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members
 
  I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to
  keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone.
 
  Thank you for listening,
   jack
 

 -- 
 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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Matt Liotta

It is? IIRC, the tariff price of 1.5 meg DSL from BellSouth is $23.95.

-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:


But what about oversubscription?
Transit costs aside, the cost of last-mile transport of even 1 Mbps of data
pipe is still far more than $20-30 / month
What happens when users actually start *using* the bandwidth they are
*promised*...

-Charles

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




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:46 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)


Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If 
a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use 
that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for 
what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be 
able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been 
going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are 
getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their 
side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers 
as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' 
quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you 
don't have to pay for it.


-Matt

George Rogato wrote:

 


It is a stretch peter.

But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree
content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the 
pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the 
provider will have increased costs.


Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops
lower theirs? Not likely.

The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying
make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content 
can't get a free ride.


So what should we do?

George




Peter R. wrote:

   


That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money?

If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't 
there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 
days notice to affect a price change?


- Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.


George Rogato wrote:

 


I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional
movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem.

But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his
newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to 
offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and 
plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get 
ALL their tv that way.


Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your
customers.

Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got
there be enough to handle that type of traffic?
Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this?

What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was
offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build 
local infrastructure?


I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near
future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be 
saying then?


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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Charles Wu
But that's just the last mile local loop -- what about the ATM DS-3 circuit
coming back (and so forth)
Then there's servicing costs / etc

Keep in mind -- Bell copper has been amortized for quite a long time now --
and has been installed at almost a 100% penetration rate -- if you're
building your own infrastructure (wireless per say) -- do you realistically
believe that you're monthly costs for transport (inclusive from your NOC to
the customer's house) is less?

-Charles

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 12:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)


It is? IIRC, the tariff price of 1.5 meg DSL from BellSouth is $23.95.

-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:

But what about oversubscription?
Transit costs aside, the cost of last-mile transport of even 1 Mbps of 
data pipe is still far more than $20-30 / month What happens when 
users actually start *using* the bandwidth they are *promised*...

-Charles

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:46 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)


Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If
a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use 
that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for 
what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be 
able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been 
going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are 
getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their 
side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers 
as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' 
quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you 
don't have to pay for it.

-Matt

George Rogato wrote:

  

It is a stretch peter.

But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree 
content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the 
pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the 
provider will have increased costs.

Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops 
lower theirs? Not likely.

The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying 
make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content 
can't get a free ride.

So what should we do?

George




Peter R. wrote:



That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money?

If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't
there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 
days notice to affect a price change?

- Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.


George Rogato wrote:

  

I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional 
movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem.

But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his 
newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to 
offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and 
plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get 
ALL their tv that way.

Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your 
customers.

Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got 
there be enough to handle that type of traffic? Would you have to 
upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this?

What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was 
offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build 
local infrastructure?

I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near 
future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be 
saying then?

George



  


  


-- 
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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,

Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of 
acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts.



What makes you come to that conclusion?


Well... you can't make Net Neutrality Laws without considering how ISPs 
would be capable of technically delivering on those laws, without self harm.
I have not read anything from legislators that includes data on technical 
aspects of delivery. The problems is that Fiber has different capabilties 
than Wireless, and I jsut don;t see how someone can make a law that deal 
with delviery of data, when technologies used for delivery are so widely 
different in capacity. Ex. One fiber loop, can deliver 80GB. Jsut needs a 
hardware change, which price may drop in cost with market forces and 
legislation encouraging higher speeds and volume of deployment.  Wireless on 
the other hand has a fixed capacity, in practicality today. In many cases 
peaked at 30mbps, and often peaked at as low a 4 mbps.  How can legislation 
address both technologies with out special provisions injected to cater to 
each? The absense of adresssing dissimilar technology in Legislation infers 
that those writing legislation do not undrstand the issues at hand 
jsutifying it to be addressed.  In truth, I have no prove that draws me to 
my conclusion. It just sounds likely to me.  This industry takes a lot of 
predicting and forecasting, its not all black and white for us to know the 
truth.



So, where is your argument against

my earlier email?


Actualy my response really isn't a targeted arguement to your original post. 
Reading your post, however did spark thought from me on Net Neutrality, that 
I find a interesting complex issue. Consider my response, my daily rambling. 
:-)


I disagree it is a flawed model. We have customers that buy VoIP from us 
and others that buy VoIP from companies like Vonage. Our VoIP is much 
higher quality, but for customers that buy Vonage they accept the service 
for what it is. We don't lower the priority of Vonage traffic; we don't 
have to. Our VoIP service will always better if for no other reason than 
it doesn't rely on internet transit. Core internet routers are designed to 
move as much traffic as fast as possible. Sometimes this means queing of 
traffic to obtain maximum throughput, while at the same time raising 
latency. That is a good thing for core routers, but a bad thing for 
real-time traffic like VoIP.


The difference here is that you currently appear to offer adequate QOS on 
your network design to offer a better Quality service. Many WISPs do NOT. 
Because they went after a different market that did not require it.  And 
many of them will likely not beable to upgrade their networks adequately to 
cater to requirements to deliver Net Neutrality as some legislation suggests 
the problem get solved.  Which could result in large loss of clients and 
failure of businesses.  I'm not necessarilly against Net Neutrality.  I just 
need to know that certain special interests such as Wireless and small 
providers are looked out for and not just bundled in with the profiles of 
the large carriers, Ilecs, cable co, and National CLECS.


The other thing is that I believe it is foolish to think that you will 
always deliver better QOS. Maybe you do today, I don;t challenge that. But 
the jsut because the Vonages of the world are cheap, does not necessarilly 
make them a less reliable provider.  The Vonages of the world are the 
largest threats to third party VOIP providers, jsut lije giant Cable 
companies are threats to Independant ISPs, and Microsoft is to Operating 
system developers.  Vonage has scaled huge, and that gives them an economy 
of scale to be capable of delivering better value. They also have more money 
to hire better people to design better systems, etc.  It doesn't mean they 
have done it today, but the possibilty is there.


But I agree with your point, in most cases, there should be no reason to 
specifically lower the priority of Vonages traffic, ethically. But a network 
very well might need to limit all VOIP in general to maintain QOS for data. 
The difference is cherry picking out specific businesses to block or harm. 
That is what Net Neutrality must protect from. But a Network Provider must 
be able to deterine what type of traffic can travel accross its network, and 
at what speed and priority, its required for network management.


So let me go as far as saying, maybe it is wrong for a provider to 
prioritize delivery of its product over another providers, after further 
thought.  An ISP can jsutify the higher QOS of its self provided VOIP 
services, based on number of hops to VOIP gateway. If my VOIP gateway 
rtesides on my network, with a engineered path, I know its likely going to 
perform better than someone using a VOIP service that travels the INternet 
to the VOIP gateway without the abilty to deliver QOS.  MAybe this will turn 
into a situation like Google cache appliances, or 

Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Matt Liotta

Charles Wu wrote:


But that's just the last mile local loop -- what about the ATM DS-3 circuit
coming back (and so forth)
Then there's servicing costs / etc

 

I was simply responding to your statement regarding just the last mile 
transport. If you want to include other considerations in the discussion 
then I don't understand your earlier email.



Keep in mind -- Bell copper has been amortized for quite a long time now --
and has been installed at almost a 100% penetration rate -- if you're
building your own infrastructure (wireless per say) -- do you realistically
believe that you're monthly costs for transport (inclusive from your NOC to
the customer's house) is less?

 

I never stated that my transport costs are less. Then again, I don't 
provide transport to single family homes anyway, so it is kind of 
irrelevant. Do I sell non-oversubscribed bandwidth to our commercial 
customers today? Yes, so I really don't care how much bandwidth they 
use. Can I sell a similar service to dense residential developments? 
Sure, but we haven't figured out how to do more than 2 installs per day, 
so I would rather focus on high ARPU customers. BTW, our 1.5Mbps last 
mile transport costs are lower than what Bell offers CLECs.


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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

The difference here is that you currently appear to offer adequate QOS 
on your network design to offer a better Quality service. Many WISPs 
do NOT. Because they went after a different market that did not 
require it.  And many of them will likely not beable to upgrade their 
networks adequately to cater to requirements to deliver Net Neutrality 
as some legislation suggests the problem get solved.  Which could 
result in large loss of clients and failure of businesses.  I'm not 
necessarilly against Net Neutrality.  I just need to know that certain 
special interests such as Wireless and small providers are looked out 
for and not just bundled in with the profiles of the large carriers, 
Ilecs, cable co, and National CLECS.


Markets change and business that won't or can't adapt deserve to lose. 
We should not have regulation designed to protect business models that 
no longer make sense. For example, I don't think we should help the 
airlines out when they run out of money. If some airlines can operate 
profitably then there is no reason to help out ones that can't.


The other thing is that I believe it is foolish to think that you will 
always deliver better QOS. Maybe you do today, I don;t challenge that. 
But the jsut because the Vonages of the world are cheap, does not 
necessarilly make them a less reliable provider.  The Vonages of the 
world are the largest threats to third party VOIP providers, jsut lije 
giant Cable companies are threats to Independant ISPs, and Microsoft 
is to Operating system developers.  Vonage has scaled huge, and that 
gives them an economy of scale to be capable of delivering better 
value. They also have more money to hire better people to design 
better systems, etc.  It doesn't mean they have done it today, but the 
possibilty is there.


Vonage might be bigger, have better people, and more cash, but their 
service will never be higher quality that ours because we own the 
network. Vonage's service might be good enough (I don't think it is), 
but it will never be better until they have end-to-end control.


So let me go as far as saying, maybe it is wrong for a provider to 
prioritize delivery of its product over another providers, after 
further thought.  An ISP can jsutify the higher QOS of its self 
provided VOIP services, based on number of hops to VOIP gateway. If my 
VOIP gateway rtesides on my network, with a engineered path, I know 
its likely going to perform better than someone using a VOIP service 
that travels the INternet to the VOIP gateway without the abilty to 
deliver QOS.  MAybe this will turn into a situation like Google cache 
appliances, or edge Web caching appliances, where the VOIP providers 
pay you to host their VOIP gateways to get shortest path the 
Subscriber/VOIP Phone user?


VoIP gateways closer to the customer is certainly one way to address the 
problem. I would expect the Akamais of the world to be looking into this.


But what needs to be made inevidably clear in any Net Neutrality 
legislation, is that a Network Provider must never be prevented from 
taking actions that will allow them to fix or deliver the QOS or 
EXPERIENCE to its customers, that they are contractually obligated to 
deliver to its subscribers, not necessarilly speed, capacity or 
commited rates. Network providers can not fear LEGAL RECOURCE every 
time they go to manage their network.


Certainly the government can force you to modify the contracts you have 
with your customers. See the 911 problems all the VoIP providers are having.


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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Peter R.

Charles,

Many do indeed :)

- Peter

Charles Wu wrote:


But that's just the last mile local loop -- what about the ATM DS-3 circuit
coming back (and so forth)
Then there's servicing costs / etc

Keep in mind -- Bell copper has been amortized for quite a long time now --
and has been installed at almost a 100% penetration rate -- if you're
building your own infrastructure (wireless per say) -- do you realistically
believe that you're monthly costs for transport (inclusive from your NOC to
the customer's house) is less?

-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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Peter R.

What tariff rate? DSL is unregulated and de-tariffed.
It is also subsidized by voice services, since it uses the same copper 
pair.

Billing is miniscule (less than $1) because you already get a bill.
Their IP and ATM combined cost is less than $2 per subscriber.
The real overhead is tech support and the DSG (DSL Support Group).

- Peter


Matt Liotta wrote:


It is? IIRC, the tariff price of 1.5 meg DSL from BellSouth is $23.95.

-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:


But what about oversubscription?
Transit costs aside, the cost of last-mile transport of even 1 Mbps 
of data

pipe is still far more than $20-30 / month
What happens when users actually start *using* the bandwidth they are
*promised*...

-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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Charles Wu
I was simply responding to your statement regarding just the last mile 
transport. If you want to include other considerations in the discussion 
then I don't understand your earlier email.

When considering net neutrality and its implications (e.g., allowing the TV
company to stream video over your network) -- I'm am trying to point out
that it's not simply a matter of bandwidth from the tower to the customer,
but also the tower backbone all the way to your NOC

Now -- if you're selling dedicated commercial bandwidth, this isn't an
issue, but if you're following standard residential oversubscription rules /
ratio (e.g., 1000 acounts equates to about 10 Mb @ 95%) -- it's going to get
EXTREMELY PAINFUL if those customers actually try to use all the bandwidth
that's been marketed to them

Then there's the issue of all those nasty/filtered services and net
neutrality -- will filtering bittorrent (or whatever nasty new bandwidth
hogging file sharing or whatever new program out there) violate the terms of
network neutrality?

-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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Peter R.
According to Eric Lee, most of the 500+ members of Congress don't 
understand any of this stuff, but have to write a bill that does. Hence, 
do you really think that Congress or the FCC takes in to account the 
difference between fiber and wireless? How about the cable system and 
the PSTN? How about wireless and cellular? Nope. All lumped under one 
big pile that is misunderstood, but is churning the American economic 
engine and keeping many lobbyists and Congressmen rich.


Peter


Tom DeReggi wrote:

Well... you can't make Net Neutrality Laws without considering how 
ISPs would be capable of technically delivering on those laws, without 
self harm.
I have not read anything from legislators that includes data on 
technical aspects of delivery. The problems is that Fiber has 
different capabilties than Wireless, and I jsut don;t see how someone 
can make a law that deal with delviery of data, when technologies used 
for delivery are so widely different in capacity. Ex. One fiber loop, 
can deliver 80GB. Jsut needs a hardware change, which price may drop 
in cost with market forces and legislation encouraging higher speeds 
and volume of deployment.  Wireless on the other hand has a fixed 
capacity, in practicality today. In many cases peaked at 30mbps, and 
often peaked at as low a 4 mbps.  How can legislation address both 
technologies with out special provisions injected to cater to each? 
The absense of adresssing dissimilar technology in Legislation infers 
that those writing legislation do not undrstand the issues at hand 
jsutifying it to be addressed.  In truth, I have no prove that draws 
me to my conclusion. It just sounds likely to me.  This industry takes 
a lot of predicting and forecasting, its not all black and white for 
us to know the truth.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Matt Liotta

Charles Wu wrote:


When considering net neutrality and its implications (e.g., allowing the TV
company to stream video over your network) -- I'm am trying to point out
that it's not simply a matter of bandwidth from the tower to the customer,
but also the tower backbone all the way to your NOC

 

Fair enough, but your earlier email asked on about a single issue, last 
mile transport.



Now -- if you're selling dedicated commercial bandwidth, this isn't an
issue, but if you're following standard residential oversubscription rules /
ratio (e.g., 1000 acounts equates to about 10 Mb @ 95%) -- it's going to get
EXTREMELY PAINFUL if those customers actually try to use all the bandwidth
that's been marketed to them

 

Then maybe standard residential over subscription isn't going to work 
much longer. I don't see that as an issue worthy of government time 
though. If the market demands more bandwidth and your business can't 
deliver then I agree your business is going to be painful. On the other 
hand, if you can deliver exciting times are coming.



Then there's the issue of all those nasty/filtered services and net
neutrality -- will filtering bittorrent (or whatever nasty new bandwidth
hogging file sharing or whatever new program out there) violate the terms of
network neutrality?

 

Filtering services is the wrong way to go. Bandwidth management that 
encourages the right sort of subscriber behavior is a better way to go. 
Don't like people downloading DVDs over your network? Slow down 
downloads that are active for longer than a specified period of time. 
This enables the user to do what they want, but at the same time 
encourages the user to do what you want.


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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-04 Thread Travis Johnson
WE aren't going to be able to do anything. Do you have millions to 
lobby this (one way or the other)? We will sit back and watch what 
happens, just like we ALWAYS have to do.


The smaller WISPs have never influenced anything political. It's the big 
players that make the changes.


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:


It is a stretch peter.

But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree 
content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the 
pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the 
provider will have increased costs.


Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops 
lower theirs? Not likely.


The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying 
make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content 
can't get a free ride.


So what should we do?

George




Peter R. wrote:


That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money?

If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model.
Isn't there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month?
How about 30 days notice to affect a price change?

- Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.


George Rogato wrote:

I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional 
movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem.


But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his 
newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to 
offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and 
plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get 
ALL their tv that way.


Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your 
customers.


Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got 
there be enough to handle that type of traffic?

Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this?

What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was 
offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build 
local infrastructure?


I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near 
future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be 
saying then?


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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-04 Thread Matt Liotta
Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If 
a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use 
that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for 
what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be 
able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been 
going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are 
getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their 
side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers 
as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' 
quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you 
don't have to pay for it.


-Matt

George Rogato wrote:


It is a stretch peter.

But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree 
content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the 
pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the 
provider will have increased costs.


Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops 
lower theirs? Not likely.


The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying 
make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content 
can't get a free ride.


So what should we do?

George




Peter R. wrote:


That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money?

If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model.
Isn't there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month?
How about 30 days notice to affect a price change?

- Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.


George Rogato wrote:

I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional 
movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem.


But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his 
newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to 
offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and 
plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get 
ALL their tv that way.


Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your 
customers.


Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got 
there be enough to handle that type of traffic?

Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this?

What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was 
offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build 
local infrastructure?


I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near 
future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be 
saying then?


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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-04 Thread Tom DeReggi
? The problem with that plan is with the exception of the 
Cashmere companies who would get filthy rich over night, most Retail stores 
would soon go out of business. And consumers would get cheated in the long 
run, because there would no longer be any where to buy Cashmere either.


How is Cashmere and Cotton any different than the flavors of Broadband than 
many provider offer? An ISP has the right to carry inventory just like any 
other industry.


In the above example, I am defining the product that consumers are buying as 
flavors of broadband connectivity, (burst, MIR, CIR, Best effort, 
oversubscriber 1000 to 1, over subscribed 1 to 2, etc.), and in no way does 
the INternet content ever come into play in the arguement, nor should it. 
The reason is that Broadband providers don't necessaarilly sell content, 
they sell broadband products.  Content is not their business, and really are 
irrelevant arguements. But if they want to sell content as well, so what? 
Shouldn't they have the right, to add that product to their port folio. When 
I have an agreement between me the provider and the consumer, it is an 
agreement between us two parties, and NOWHERE does it include an 
understanding with any third party content provider. I don't see their 
signature. They are not part of the contract and ahve no right regarding it, 
and the consumer has no rights under the contract greater than the rights 
given within that contract.


Who say Internet Access is defined as Content?  The Internet is a 
physical Network. And to guarantee the original intent of the Internet, 
the only thing we must guarantee is the Internetworking between members of 
the Internet.  Therefore giving those that want to share content and receive 
content a mechanism to do so.  NOT  A GUARANTEE TO DO SO!   The INternet is 
a machanism for Interconnections, not an intity to take over other's 
networks.  Should a University no longer beable to manage their own network, 
because it gets connected to the Internet? How is that any different than a 
Local ISP managing the subscribers on its network? Some Universities are 
larger than soem small ISPs.


This is where the difference is...  Should Safeway be allowed to choose 
which products Giant is allowed to sell to its consumers?  This now being 
not only an analogy for content, but also for speed limiting.  If I want to 
sell my clients the 1 mbps CIR product, I don't have the abilty if the ILEC 
blocks and slows down my traffic to them, based on it comming from me the 
Provider, thus preventing fair competition.


Whats important to understand here above all is... As long as consumers have 
choice of providers, there is an effect market pressure to make sure 
Consumers are not cheated and can continue to access content.  Content 
providers are not at risk currently. Anyone can setup Content providing 
anywhere, anytime, easilly.   Broadband Connectivity providers on the other 
hand do not have that same luxury.  Competitive Broadband providers MUST be 
protected at all costs. By protecting the Third Party Broadband providers, 
maintaining competition within connectivity, by default indirectly, 
consumers are protected, and ultimately Content providers will have many 
option for servcie delivery.   The second third party connectivity providers 
are extinct, the Content provider will not be far from it. The reason is a 
Monopoly is often above the law. You can't hold  monoply responsible when 
doing so will result in the destruvtion of service for many consumers, it 
will kill industry and the economy.  Both ILECS and Microsoft have proven 
this over and over again. Once they got control, there is no tiurning back, 
and they will make the rules that they see fit.  What do you do when the 
ILECs desides they are going to partner with just one content provider? Do 
you think teh Governemnt will be able to stop them once they own the market? 
When there can only be one, whats the chance that you will be it?


If you want to save the content provider, the best way to do it is make 
legislation that protects the third party connectivity proivider, NOT the 
content provider.  There is no free lunch for the Content provider anymore 
than for anyone else.


Net Neutrality is about connectivity provider rights, not consumer rights or 
content provider rights.


My take on Net Neutrality.  No NOT save the Internet, Save the Third Party 
Connectivity Providers that allow it to be an Internet.  My fear is that one 
day the Internet will go away, but because it will become the Verizon or SBC 
Network.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)


Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If a 
customer buys 1 meg of data service from me

Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-04 Thread Jory Privett
Very powerful statement!!!

Jory Privett
WCCS

- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)


Well, that the big misunderstanding right there.

When someone sells 1 mbps of speed, who said that meant they are selling the
customer continuous 1 mbps for what ever use they want? And just because we
sell them a 1 mbps last mile, who says that we are selling them that
capacity accross our backbone network?

Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of
acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts.

When I sell 1 mbps to a resident, I in no way represent I am selling the
subscriber 1 mbps of capacity. I'm selling him that speed. There is a nig
difference.  If they want that guaranteed capacity, they can buy it from me
per bit, or pay for a CIR plan that guarantees that capacity.

Also, content providers practice limiting individual connections' (end
user's) speed to their content servers. Why should they have the right to
limit our consumer's speed? They argue to protect their servers and Internet
connections.  How is that any different for an ISP to limit connections to
their end users, to protect their Internet connections.  Who really owns the
Internet connections to consumers? Is it the consumer or the ISP? Last time
I checked its the ISP that holds the long term loan covering the cost of
that infrastructure, not the subscriber. If the end user cancels, its the
ISP that is left covering the bill.  I argue it is the ISP that owns that
connection, and should be able to do what ever they want with their
connection.

There is a big difference controling traffic of your users, versus blocking
traffic from other Broadband providers.

Net Neutrality should address one topic and one topic only, prevent one
Broadband provider from blocking traffic from another broadband provider in
an attempt to harm the other Broadband provider or have a competitive
advantage over that other Broadband provider, by leveraging its size and
share of the market.  There needs to be free non-discriminary exchange of
data between Broadband providers, so that competitions can be abundant and
consumers have choice, and can select based on the accomplishments and merit
added by those providers.

Content Providers nor Consumers have the right to control where and who they
send data to, in my opinion.  Its no different than a property owner
determining who their tenants can and can not have access to, and who can
and can not bring cable on to their property.

VOIP providers most likely won't share my view, as they want a free ride.
However, I beleive VOIP providers would not be harmfully effected by this,
as all it would mean is that they must make partnerships with ISPs. There
are 7000 ISPs out there ready to accept partnerships.  Whats wrong with
that.  UNfortuneately, the idea that a VOIP content provider should ahve
free reign to sell to anyone, such as through best Buy and Circuit cities,
regardless of which ISP used, is a flawed model for competition. The reason
is that the most popular and largest VOIP providers will be the one that
gets the deal with Circuit Cities and Best Buys, and the industry will get
lopsided, almost like a market driven self created monopoly.  Forcing VOIP
providers to make deals with ISPs, will create the opportunity for more
different VOIP providers to be successfull and have a peice of the pie. It
will also guaranteee that consumers can't as easilly be blindsided by
misrepresenting marketing material. It will guarantee that VOIP has a better
chance to survuve will good QOS because attention will be given by the
broadband provider to make sure it is there.

in another view, maybe ethically, its the content providers that should get
a free ride. And its the subscribers that should be getting billed. But we
all know, the uproar that will happen when we try and charge the consumer.
The truth is the consumer has such a gross misunderstanding of how the
industry works and what it is they have bought when subscribing to a
broadband service, its almost impossible to change the perception at this
point. We owe that to the huge marketing efforts of Cable and ILECs :-(  So
its not about ethics anymore. Its about survival, and how to make it work.
And that most likely means charging content providers, whether its right or
not.

But one thing I can tell you for sure, is its not the Broadband provider
taht should pay for it.  Nobody should be able to force me to mold the
product that I sell into something other than what I want to sell. Its like
going to a retial store and the governemnt forcing the owner to only be
allowed to sell cashmere instead of cotton, but requiring them to sell it at
the same cost as the cotton, regardless of the fact that the cashmere has a
higher cost than the cotton did.  Think about it, it would

Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-04 Thread Tom DeReggi

Jack,

I have not visited the site yet, and at your recommendation, I will explore 
their content, to see if it is something that I would support or not.


However, if only 6 ISPs have signed, that could be a sign, that it may not 
support our needs.


I believe in Freedom of Speech, but I also believe its the responsibilty of 
the speaker to bare the cost and responsibilty of their speech. Its not the 
ISPs responsibilty to buy the microphone.


Net Neutrality, is a tough subject, to even fully understand what a group is 
supporting.


Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, 
etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and 
how much extra it will cost to use the Internet


I agree, but... The problem is the interpretation of what the definition of 
the Internet is. I have no problem with the above comment, if meaning is 
conections between providers. The problem is that most people Interperate 
Internet being the connection all the way to the consumer.  I feel that 
legislation may prevent ISPs from blocking access from their consumers. The 
only alternative is prioritizing or slowing down traffic accross the network 
between providers. Its hard to know if the second should not be supported, 
if we don;t know if we'll loose control of our last mile.


If wireless Providers can't control the flow of data on their network to 
consumers, it will destroy their networks. And If WISPS are allowed to block 
and Large carriers are not, consumers are likely to pick big carriers over 
WISPs. Its a scary situation, when you know one TV broadcast can monopolize 
the throughput of a WISPs connection to its clients in many cases.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)


Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, 
etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and 
how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are 
allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not 
just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone 
providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the 
citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the 
coalition to Save the Internet.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/

As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I 
urge each one of you to:


1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/

2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First 
Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the American 
Constitution - Freedom of Speech.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality

4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save 
the Internet.


5. If you disagree, take action to support your position.

6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your 
position.



So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have signed 
up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six are ISPs; 
none of the six appear to be WISPs.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members

I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to keep 
the Internet accessible equally by everyone.


Thank you for listening,
 jack

--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next public WISP Workshop is June 21 and 22 in Atlanta, Georgia
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-04 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

When someone sells 1 mbps of speed, who said that meant they are 
selling the customer continuous 1 mbps for what ever use they want? 
And just because we sell them a 1 mbps last mile, who says that we are 
selling them that capacity accross our backbone network?


You may oversubscribe your customers; not every ISP does. However, that 
is irrelevant. If the customer is buying an oversubscribed link then the 
customer must accept that certain types of content may not work very 
well. That is the customer's choice.


Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of 
acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts.



What makes you come to that conclusion?

When I sell 1 mbps to a resident, I in no way represent I am selling 
the subscriber 1 mbps of capacity. I'm selling him that speed. There 
is a nig difference.  If they want that guaranteed capacity, they can 
buy it from me per bit, or pay for a CIR plan that guarantees that 
capacity.


And if the customer buys a CIR plan then they can use their connection 
for whatever content they want right? So, where is your argument against 
my earlier email?


VOIP providers most likely won't share my view, as they want a free 
ride. However, I beleive VOIP providers would not be harmfully 
effected by this, as all it would mean is that they must make 
partnerships with ISPs. There are 7000 ISPs out there ready to accept 
partnerships.  Whats wrong with that.  UNfortuneately, the idea that a 
VOIP content provider should ahve free reign to sell to anyone, such 
as through best Buy and Circuit cities, regardless of which ISP used, 
is a flawed model for competition. The reason is that the most popular 
and largest VOIP providers will be the one that gets the deal with 
Circuit Cities and Best Buys, and the industry will get lopsided, 
almost like a market driven self created monopoly.  Forcing VOIP 
providers to make deals with ISPs, will create the opportunity for 
more different VOIP providers to be successfull and have a peice of 
the pie. It will also guaranteee that consumers can't as easilly be 
blindsided by misrepresenting marketing material. It will guarantee 
that VOIP has a better chance to survuve will good QOS because 
attention will be given by the broadband provider to make sure it is 
there.


I disagree it is a flawed model. We have customers that buy VoIP from us 
and others that buy VoIP from companies like Vonage. Our VoIP is much 
higher quality, but for customers that buy Vonage they accept the 
service for what it is. We don't lower the priority of Vonage traffic; 
we don't have to. Our VoIP service will always better if for no other 
reason than it doesn't rely on internet transit. Core internet routers 
are designed to move as much traffic as fast as possible. Sometimes this 
means queing of traffic to obtain maximum throughput, while at the same 
time raising latency. That is a good thing for core routers, but a bad 
thing for real-time traffic like VoIP.


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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-04 Thread Peter R.

Tom,

Random mixed thoughts:

When I buy a car or a sweater, I understand the tangible asset I have 
paid for.
When I pay a toll on a highway, I understand that it is a tax for the 
thru-way upkeep.
When I buy an internet pipe, I assume when they say 1.5M, I get 1.5M. 
Anything else better be explained or it is false advertising. And 
everyone has had the speed test junkies that scream about 1.3M.


The Big Boys state that it is best effort. Do you?
Do you advertise CIR or offer it?
Do you have terms that explain it is not a dedicated connection?
These are the CYA policies necessary.

BellSouth has sued successfully ISPs for advertising they though was 
misleading, even as they themselves use misleading terms and phrases. 
But who has the bucks to sue the Tele-Baron???


I don't see any time soon when people are going to be downloading TV and 
movies. Some will, but a majority do not want to watch them from a PC.


The Telcos are in for a rude awakening because the TV pie is static. As 
Isen explained this week, the price will have to go up for consumers, 
since neither cable nor telco can afford to pay off debt, maintain the 
pipes, and make their usual bloated profit off triple play. So it will 
be a price war in the short term, then price increases in the long term. 
Bloody for all, especially the consumer.


On Net Neutrality - Personally, I think it should be hands off. Period.
Anything less and the internet will become useless.

And that Free Ride argument... who gets a free ride? Both sides all 
ready pay a provider for access. So where is the free?
Plus, why do you think people want BB? If it was just to check email, 
they would stay on dial-up or buy a CrackBerry.


They are buying an experience or a tool. If the tool doesn't work, they 
will buy another one. If the experience becomes painful, they will go 
elsewhere. This is the way of the market. Why do people flock to 
Starbucks, Lexus, BlackBerries? The experience, not the product.


Sorry for rambling. One too many cups of cappucino today.

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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-04 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
After attending the Freedom to Connect conference, I was able to get a 
very up close and personal look at the people who are strongly 
supporting the Net Neutrality concepts.   I believe that the intention 
is to keep the status quo of the Internet, and make sure that we will 
all be able to get the content that we want with a minimum of 
control/blockage/prioritization, etc.  However, there are a couple of 
distinctions that need to be made.


#1)  Last mile networks that are built with private, non-government 
money - should not be FORCED to follow common-carrier guidelines.  
I.E. - I build and paid for my own network, and if I want to block port 
1 and break Vonage from working, I should be able to do that.   
Sucks for Vonage, but it would suck even more if the management of 
private networks was controlled by legislators.   Any new network 
construction that gets any kind of economic development or government 
assistance in the form of tax credits or breaks should have network 
neutrality mandated into it - or they don't get the assistance.


#2)  There should be a set of services that do fall under the common 
carrier guidelines and do little more than provide the interconnect 
between networks.  There should be strong Network Neutrality guidelines 
for interconnection at the backbone level.  Otherwise, my backbone 
provider can decide to block traffic and then it is out of my control.  
Of course they can charge more, and for these kind of connections we are 
ALREADY paying a substantial premium, but unfettered common carrier 
connections need to be available. 

The one thing that could really make a big difference in this whole 
equation is the existence and growth of other players beyond the 
telephone companies and major backbone carriers.   If the telcos and 
cablecos continue with their apparent plan to make their networks into 
giant walled silos of their own content  - there will be a substantial 
demand for open networks.   WISPS are in a good position to take 
advantage of their manipulations.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Tom DeReggi wrote:

Jack,

I have not visited the site yet, and at your recommendation, I will 
explore their content, to see if it is something that I would support 
or not.


However, if only 6 ISPs have signed, that could be a sign, that it may 
not support our needs.


I believe in Freedom of Speech, but I also believe its the 
responsibilty of the speaker to bare the cost and responsibilty of 
their speech. Its not the ISPs responsibilty to buy the microphone.


Net Neutrality, is a tough subject, to even fully understand what a 
group is supporting.


Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers 
(ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the 
Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet


I agree, but... The problem is the interpretation of what the 
definition of the Internet is. I have no problem with the above 
comment, if meaning is conections between providers. The problem is 
that most people Interperate Internet being the connection all the 
way to the consumer.  I feel that legislation may prevent ISPs from 
blocking access from their consumers. The only alternative is 
prioritizing or slowing down traffic accross the network between 
providers. Its hard to know if the second should not be supported, if 
we don;t know if we'll loose control of our last mile.


If wireless Providers can't control the flow of data on their network 
to consumers, it will destroy their networks. And If WISPS are allowed 
to block and Large carriers are not, consumers are likely to pick big 
carriers over WISPs. Its a scary situation, when you know one TV 
broadcast can monopolize the throughput of a WISPs connection to its 
clients in many cases.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)


Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers 
(ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the 
Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, 
assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be 
(as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing 
at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is 
undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. 
That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the 
Internet.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/

As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, 
I urge each one of you to:


1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/

2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First 
Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the 
American Constitution - Freedom of Speech.



Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-03 Thread George Rogato
While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what 
will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband 
providers network.


If there is any application that I can think of that changes the rules 
of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say you sold 
a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no ISP has 
sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a small 
percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or had in 
mind that this type of usage would be common place when he first sold 
his services and set pricing.


Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if we 
all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows 
movies-television shows at the same time across our network.
That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video have 
a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to both 
our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee?


Anyone else want to argue this?

It's a good subject that we should be discussing.

George

Jack Unger wrote:
Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers 
(ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the 
Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming 
that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I 
understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all 
unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, 
unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I 
support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/

As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I 
urge each one of you to:


1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/

2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First 
Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the 
American Constitution - Freedom of Speech.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality

4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save 
the Internet.


5. If you disagree, take action to support your position.

6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your 
position.



So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have 
signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six 
are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members

I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to 
keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone.


Thank you for listening,
 jack



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-03 Thread Travis Johnson

Hi,

The flip side is that you are selling a customer a connection. That is 
how YOU are making your money... why do you care what they run over it? 
Does it matter if it's IPTV or doing an FTP file transfer?


However, I really don't think this is going to affect the smaller 
operators. This bill was designed for people like UUnet, ATT, Sprint, 
etc. so they can start doing a tiered billing (in hopes of making more 
money for the same amount of bandwidth). I also heard that Google and 
some other players were possibly supporting this idea, in hopes that 
they would be able to pay for faster net speeds. (i.e. when someone does 
a Google search it would be faster because Google is paying ATT or 
whomever for faster access than say Yahoo or whoever).


It is a bad idea all the way around. I can see no benefit to the average 
Internet user, and only more headaches for the ISP's.


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:

While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what 
will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband 
providers network.


If there is any application that I can think of that changes the rules 
of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say you 
sold a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no ISP 
has sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a small 
percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or had in 
mind that this type of usage would be common place when he first sold 
his services and set pricing.


Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if we 
all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows 
movies-television shows at the same time across our network.
That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video 
have a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to 
both our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee?


Anyone else want to argue this?

It's a good subject that we should be discussing.

George

Jack Unger wrote:

Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers 
(ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the 
Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, 
assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be 
(as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing 
at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is 
undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. 
That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the 
Internet.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/

As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, 
I urge each one of you to:


1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/

2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First 
Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the 
American Constitution - Freedom of Speech.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality

4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to 
save the Internet.


5. If you disagree, take action to support your position.

6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support 
your position.



So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have 
signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, 
six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members

I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to 
keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone.


Thank you for listening,
 jack




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-03 Thread John Thomas

It seems like it is time to bill by the packet.
Or at least by groups of packets as in 2 Gigs for $39.
Many clients don;t like this kind of billing, but it is likely the only 
way you can do anything about IPTV.


If you have sold someone a 384k unmetered connection, and they decide to 
actually use it, how can you justify changing the rules?


John


George Rogato wrote:
While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what 
will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband 
providers network.


If there is any application that I can think of that changes the rules 
of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say you 
sold a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no ISP 
has sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a small 
percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or had in 
mind that this type of usage would be common place when he first sold 
his services and set pricing.


Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if we 
all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows 
movies-television shows at the same time across our network.
That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video 
have a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to 
both our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee?


Anyone else want to argue this?

It's a good subject that we should be discussing.

George

Jack Unger wrote:
Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers 
(ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the 
Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, 
assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be 
(as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing 
at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is 
undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. 
That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the 
Internet.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/

As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, 
I urge each one of you to:


1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/

2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First 
Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the 
American Constitution - Freedom of Speech.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality

4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to 
save the Internet.


5. If you disagree, take action to support your position.

6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support 
your position.



So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have 
signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, 
six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members

I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to 
keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone.


Thank you for listening,
 jack






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-03 Thread John Thomas
If Google wants to be faster, let them buy more T-3s or more peering, or 
whatever-don't screw with packet priority...


John

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

The flip side is that you are selling a customer a connection. That is 
how YOU are making your money... why do you care what they run over 
it? Does it matter if it's IPTV or doing an FTP file transfer?


However, I really don't think this is going to affect the smaller 
operators. This bill was designed for people like UUnet, ATT, Sprint, 
etc. so they can start doing a tiered billing (in hopes of making 
more money for the same amount of bandwidth). I also heard that Google 
and some other players were possibly supporting this idea, in hopes 
that they would be able to pay for faster net speeds. (i.e. when 
someone does a Google search it would be faster because Google is 
paying ATT or whomever for faster access than say Yahoo or whoever).


It is a bad idea all the way around. I can see no benefit to the 
average Internet user, and only more headaches for the ISP's.


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:

While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what 
will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband 
providers network.


If there is any application that I can think of that changes the 
rules of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say 
you sold a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no 
ISP has sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a 
small percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or 
had in mind that this type of usage would be common place when he 
first sold his services and set pricing.


Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if 
we all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows 
movies-television shows at the same time across our network.
That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video 
have a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to 
both our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee?


Anyone else want to argue this?

It's a good subject that we should be discussing.

George

Jack Unger wrote:

Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers 
(ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the 
Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, 
assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be 
(as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from 
crossing at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to 
me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free 
country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to 
Save the Internet.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/

As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet 
business, I urge each one of you to:


1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/

2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First 
Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the 
American Constitution - Freedom of Speech.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality

4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to 
save the Internet.


5. If you disagree, take action to support your position.

6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support 
your position.



So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have 
signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, 
six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members

I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort 
to keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone.


Thank you for listening,
 jack






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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