Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-21 Thread Sam Tetherow

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


  

Responses inline...



- Original Message -


*From:* David Sovereen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less
regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks
how they want is the right approach.  Net neutrality legislation
opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force
open and equal access to all content on the Internet.

   I don't see the problem with content companies and
subscribers having equal access to each other.   That, after
all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!

  

Not according to what you reply below.  Limiting P2P and prioritizing
VOIP is not equal access to all content on the Internet.



There is equal access.I limit the amount of data transferred.

  

How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from
other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.

  Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since
peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically
don't generally allow.   Terms of Service has covered hosting
forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream.

  

So you only limit the upload on your peer to peer traffic?

In my opinion it has everything to do with net neutrality.  If VZ can't
deprioritize VOIP to outside servers you why would you be able to
deprioritize peer to peer traffic.   Who is to say that P2P traffic is
less important than VOIP?



P2P works no matter jitter, latency, etc.VOIP does not.   Even video has
issues.

  

How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate
from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I only prioritize VoIP
traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from
Vonage or anyone else.

  I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to
whose servers it goes to...after all,  if I can't serve my
customer's needs, then what the heck am I?   A fraud?

  

Again, you are not providing equal access to the internet, you are
saying that someone's VOIP traffic has a higher priority then my web
traffic which in turn has a higher priority than someone else's P2P
traffic.  This seems pretty arbitrary to me.



Because you're not involved and you, as a content provider, have NO interest
in my network.  My customer, however, DOES want his VOIP phone to work, as
well as your pages to load.   Both can happen with QOS employed, no?   Your
web page loads no matter what.   His VOIP phone needs specific network
qualities to work right.

  
I'm am not making that statement as a web hosting company, I am making 
the statement as one of your customers.  If I don't use VOIP, why should 
someone else's VOIP traffic be prioritized over my web traffic?

  What if I as a provider
  

feel that web and email are top priority over VOIP and P2P?



I don't give a rip.   I only care about the CUSTOMER wants.
  
 After all I
  

am in the business of providing internet service not voice.  What if I
prioritize my VOIP traffic only since it only has to make it to my NOC
before it switches to POTs whereas vonage is eating my general IP
bandwidth?  Am I allowed to charge clients extra for dedicated VOIP
prioritization?



I dunno.  Why don't you ask them?

  

How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other
traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am again.

  Yeah.   Me too.   Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do
with limiting access to content.

  

Yes it does, you are blocking netbios and RPC, what makes them any
different then VOIP or P2P or streaming video?



My customers ASK me to protect them from malevolent attack.   They do,
however, want thier phone and video to work and work smoothly, at least to
not have my network make them NOT work properly.
  
So all of your customers have come to you and said they want you to 
blocks ports x, y and z.  And what would you do if a customer requested 
those ports to be open on their network connection?
  

Another question, am I allowed to maintain a blacklist and block at my
edge router?  What if time warner makes it on my blacklist or vonage for
some reason, can I now be fined by the FCC for not providing equal
access?  What about outgoing or incoming email?  Do I have to allow it


all?

Have you asked your customers if they want you to restrict thier access to
TimeWarner's IP blocks?
  
Do you ask all of your customers if they mind you blacklisting an IP 
block that is continuously scanning your

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-21 Thread George Rogato

Good points Larry.
I agree with your defining backbone and last mile rules and how there 
should be 2 different sets of standards.

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] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-21 Thread Peter R.

No such thing as middle ground in regulation.
I actually think No Regulation at this point would be better than any of 
the plans proposed so far.

And after compromises, it will just be a litigation fest like the TA96.

- Peter

Larry Yunker wrote:


Dave,
 
I can see your points and I agree that OVER-regulation could lead to 
the sort of harms that you list.  Unfortunately, the alternative of 
NO-regulation would enable backbone providers of the internet to weed 
out the smaller providers by deprioritizing traffic, blocking ports, 
charging tolls, etc.  I think that the correct course would be a 
MIDDLE GROUND of regulation which would differentiate between backbone 
neutrality and last-mile neutrality.
 
Since the success of the internet has long been based on the premise 
of non-discriminatory peered-backbone access, I think the goal should 
be to prohibit backbone providers from discriminating based on type-of 
traffic, source-of traffic, or destination-of traffic.  This means 
that in an ideal scenario, the government would prevent the likes of 
L3/ATT/Verizon from even looking at the type of traffic that is 
flowing through the backbone.  They don't need to know what the 
traffic is.  Rather, their business is to get that traffic from point 
A to point B and make sure that there is switching/routing capacity.  
They should not be positioned to decide WHO gets to have the best 
routes or WHO gets to have the fastest response time.  If this is 
allowed, the only providers left standing in 2010 will be the backbone 
providers themselves (anyone that has EVER dealt with a RBOC as a 
competitor should be able to attest to the fact that RBOCs sell their 
own services to themselves MUCH cheaper than they sell those services 
to their competitors). 
 
I realize that taking this stance against Tiered-Access Internet 
forecloses on all of the promised INNOVATIONS that will lead 
to true end-to-end QoS on the public internet.  Yet, I'd rather 
have today's internet with non-discriminatory routing rather 
than tomorrow's internet monopolized by Ma-Bell. 
 
Please note: I think that last-mile providers ought to be free to 
offer whatever limited/prioritized/deprioritized traffic TO THEIR OWN 
SUBSCRIBERS as they deem necessary.  If you want to block your own 
subscribers from getting P-to-P traffic, running servers, or 
downloading movies that should be your prerogative.  Perhaps you 
should be required to disclose this limited-access internet service 
to your subscribers, but you should be free to set up your 
own policies regarding the traffic that flows to/from YOUR OWN 
CLIENTS.  I see no reason that the government needs to regulate this 
sort of activity beyond requiring ISPs to divulge content 
filtering/blocking policies.  I figure it this way: if you are a 
last-mile internet provider and you are blocking content to/from your 
clients, the clients usually have to opportunity to switch to another 
provider.  IF you are the only provider of service in the area, 
then one could argue that free market economics will drive new 
competitors to enter if/when there are enough unsatisfied customers.
 
The core policy reason to regulate backbone providers is to ensure 
that internet traffic can continue to freely travel the globe without 
unnecessary limitations.  This same policy reason does not apply to 
last-mile providers because end-users/consumers/content-providers can 
all CHOOSE their last-mile provider whereas we cannot choose the path 
that our packets take when crossing the backbone of the internet!  The 
real question is whether we can get legislators to understand this 
CRUCIAL difference.
 
- Larry
 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-21 Thread Peter R.

George,

Regulation could not be put into effect that would define last-mile, 
middle mile and backbone.
When I called by Congress Critter's office to ask about his position on 
NN, the bonehead staffer that answered the phone did not even know what 
that was! Most of the 500+ elected Congress Critters and many of their 
staffers have zero idea about technology. They can't regulate DSL one 
way and your private network another.


ATT and VZ can't de-peer for another 17 months, so we have that long 
before it becomes imminent.


- Peter



Matt, you are right on the money and just summed it all up in that one 
paragraph, in my opinion.


It is true that most wisps that filter probably sell to the 
residential consumer market at low competitive prices.
We as wisps have always understood our systems to offer a shared 
service. So it's in our best interest to handle our network the way we 
see fit. We should not be forced into any type of regulatory system 
that stops us from filtering, blocking or giving priority, or not to 
our customers.


We as last mile providers need to have the leeway, but with restrictions.

Now the middle mile, is another story.
The answer to that is NO filtering, NO blocking, NO prioritizing.
Just all of what we pay for, which is dedicated internet access 
without restrictions.


After all the difference between the two is business models, one is 
selling wholesale commercial dedicated connections and the other a 
retail finished product.


And it's not like we are buying a $1,000.00 connection and reselling 
it at a mark up. We are buying a $1,000.00 connection and reselling it 
for a mark down.


Hence, over subscription. How far can we stretch our networks and 
what do we have to do to stretch it as far as we can.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


my take (was Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality)

2006-06-21 Thread Matt Liotta
I personally think this whole net neutrality is a combination of much 
ado about nothing and the little guys not learning how to work together. 
Will the RBOCs be able to wield any real power against the major content 
companies of the world? No, they won't. But, what about the small 
operations? Simple, host their web presence with facilities that wield 
enough power to get around the RBOCs. Most web operations already do 
this whether they know it or not. For example, we peer with Cogent, 
Limelight, Google, etc. Almost every content operation with the 
exception of Yahoo is available through those peers and we are working 
on a peering agreement with Yahoo now. If the RBOCs want priority access 
for our eyeballs to these content operators they can keep on dreaming 
since the traffic never touches their networks. We are not alone BTW.


Now I understand not every operation can enter into peering agreements 
with content companies or large operations like Cogent. Google alone 
requires 15Mbps of traffic destined to them from 2 geographically 
diverse locations. Of course, if many of the small players worked 
together their combined traffic would actually be interesting from a 
peering standpoint. I know people don't like to work together, but you 
are going to have learn it real soon or watch yourself get pushed around 
by the RBOCs.


Think about where things would be now if 5 years ago all the CLECs 
decided to buy from each other instead of the RBOCs. I say to everyone 
on this list, if you are buying from a RBOC anything that you can buy 
elsewhere; do it!


-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] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-21 Thread Larry Yunker
ATT and VZ can't de-peer for another 17 months, so we have that long 
before it becomes imminent.


Where did the 17 month timeframe come from?  AFAIK, without Net Neutrality 
legislation, there is nothing stopping the big guys from pulling the rug out 
from under the rest of us TODAY.  If you are suggesting that they MUST peer 
because of a RFC or contract, you are mistaken.  RFC's have no binding 
authority at law and contracts can and often are breached if the result of 
the breach will bring the breaching party a windfall.  If there is one thing 
that was made abundently clear in Contracts class it is that there are no 
punitive damages in contracts sometimes it just makes sense to breach.


If ATT can make billions in tiered-access charges by de-peering with the 
rest of the globe they will and they will do it as soon as they feel the 
time is right.  No RFC and no contract will limit them.  Until there is a 
LAW with real teeth prohibiting de-peering they can do whatever they want. 
(Real teeth = more than a grant to the FCC to investigate potential abuse. 
Oversight committees are useless without standards to uphold IMHO.)


- Larry

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-21 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

 
  Because you're not involved and you, as a content provider, have NO
interest
  in my network.  My customer, however, DOES want his VOIP phone to work,
as
  well as your pages to load.   Both can happen with QOS employed, no?
Your
  web page loads no matter what.   His VOIP phone needs specific network
  qualities to work right.
 
 
 I'm am not making that statement as a web hosting company, I am making
 the statement as one of your customers.  If I don't use VOIP, why should
 someone else's VOIP traffic be prioritized over my web traffic?

Explain.

  My customers ASK me to protect them from malevolent attack.   They do,
  however, want thier phone and video to work and work smoothly, at least
to
  not have my network make them NOT work properly.
 
 So all of your customers have come to you and said they want you to
 blocks ports x, y and z.  And what would you do if a customer requested
 those ports to be open on their network connection?

The ones that have any idea about network security do.

If a customer wanted wide open access without any port blocking, I guess I'd
just do it.

 
  Another question, am I allowed to maintain a blacklist and block at my
  edge router?  What if time warner makes it on my blacklist or vonage
for
  some reason, can I now be fined by the FCC for not providing equal
  access?  What about outgoing or incoming email?  Do I have to allow it
 
  all?
 
  Have you asked your customers if they want you to restrict thier access
to
  TimeWarner's IP blocks?
 
 Do you ask all of your customers if they mind you blacklisting an IP
 block that is continuously scanning your network?

If an IP block is disruptive to the network, I suppose I might.  I have yet
to block anything.

 
  Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you
  see my point.
 
  These controls are important for me to manage my network and
  ensure a quality of service my customers expect.
 
  Net neutrality takes these controls away.
 
I seriously doubt that.
 
 
  Why?  If the FCC can say you are not allowed to prioritize one service
  over another how can you have control of the traffic and utilization on
  your network?
 
 
  Because as far as I can tell, the whole debate has nothing to do with
any of
  this, but about a third party being asked to pay to have a network's
  customers be able to access thier services.
 


 That is the arguments that are being bandied about by the pro net
 neutrality people.  But net neutrality is not limited to content
 provider access.  The FCC has already ruled once that an RBOC is not
 allowed to restrict access to VOIP services.  It seems like WISPs
 respond to this with a yeah, sticking it to the big guy.  But my thought
 is be careful what you wish for.  If the FCC says an ISP (in this case
 an RBOC) is required to allow a specific type of traffic on their
 network (VOIP service).  What is to stop them from doing the same for
 some other service with some other provider, say P2P traffic on your
 network?

Again, this strays into the censor vs network operations.A customer
reaching a competing VOIP service doesn't harm the network anymore than them
reaching my own.   But P2P running wide open tranferring many gigs a day
DOES harm the network.Again, we're talking network operations vs
allowing hosting, and what's described in my contract as abuse.


 Net neutrality is about giving regulatory control over your business to
 the FCC.

Again, I see you trying to blur some lines that need to be drawn, not
erased.

  QOS is to make my customer's phone work.   Or his video work.   You, as
a
  web provider, have no interest and no claims on this relationship.
Now,
  along comes Verizon or Quest, and comes to YOU as web provider and says
pay
  up or we block our customer from your site, then I see a serious issue.
 
 I'm not talking about VZ going to yahoo, that is campaigning spin used
 by the pro net neutrality side of the issue.  The heart of the issue in
 my opinion is VOIP traffic and soon streaming video.

In your opinion.But I have yet to see this be an issue coming from the
mouths of the big operators.They're just scanning the internet and
looking for a way to tax the successful content or services.

  So IF there is any regulatory role in this... .  It has to do with
consumers
  finding themselves being restricted from access unless they or a third
party
  contracts to make it available.   Now, if ISP's are simply required to
  inform thier customers of what they block or deprioritize, then I have
no
  problem with them doing so.
 
 If this was the case it would take care of itself.  Someone will come
 along and offer equal access to all web providers and the people will
 flock to them for their service because they don't have to worry about
 what web sites they visit and then pick and ISP based on that.

And that should be what we call net neutrality, not sane network
operations.

  If providers 

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-21 Thread Tom DeReggi



Actually,

My Outlook Express does the same thing when I 
reply. I hate it. But I do not know how to turn it off.

Does any one know how to turn off the feature that 
includes the bar on the left, when I reply myself?

Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless 
Broadband



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Rich Comroe 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:07 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  why do you do it?
  
  I'm a top poster. I hate having to 
  essentially re-read the previous email to find the added reply comments 
  (especially when it's a long email and you ultimately just find an added "yeah 
  me too" way down at the bottom). I find that incredibly annoying. 
  I prefer replies where you pick-out what you're replying to and copy it to the 
  top along with your reply. Concise. The originals are all there 
  below for reference if you want them, but you don't have to scroll down to 
  find the reply. You can more clearly see the chain of replies 
  too(when each reply edits the same body, it quickly becomes 
  impossible).
  
  I know it's a religious preference / argument and 
  there's no right or wrong, only a preference... but youwanted to 
  know"why", so ...
  
  peace
  Rich
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Mark 
Koskenmaki 
To: WISPA General List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 
    PM
    Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
Against Net Neutrality

You guys that post using this incredibly 
annoying bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c 
onversational email impossible...

Read on below. comments are 
prefaced with 


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

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Sovereen 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's 
  position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their 
  networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality 
  legislation opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to 
  force open and equal access to all content on the Internet.
  
   I don't see the 
  problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access to each 
  other. That, after all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!
  
  How many WISPs on this listare limiting 
  P2P traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I 
  am.
  
   Me too, but this has 
  little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves 
  HOSTING, and that I specifically don't generally allow. Terms 
  of Service has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster was 
  someone's dream. 
  
  How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing 
  VoIP traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I 
  am. And I only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP 
  servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone else.
  
   I will eventually, 
  and I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes to...after 
  all, if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what the heck am 
  I? A fraud? 
  
  How many WISPs on this list are filtering 
  NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am 
  again.
  
   Yeah. 
  Me too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting 
  access to content. 
  
  Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued 
  over, but I hope you see my point.
  
  These controls are important for me to manage 
  my network and ensure a quality of service my customers 
  expect.
  
  Net neutrality takes these controls 
  away.
  
   I seriously doubt 
  that. 
  
  Dave
  
  989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net
  
  129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Larry Yunker 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
PM
    Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
Against Net Neutrality
The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands 
for the interests of Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the 
other big Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are owned by 
ATT, Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs). With statements like 
this, I don't believe that the WCA will

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-21 Thread Larry Yunker



Turn off the option to compose E-mail in 
HTML. 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tom 
  DeReggi 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:34 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  Actually,
  
  My Outlook Express does the same thing when I 
  reply. I hate it. But I do not know how to turn it 
  off.
  
  Does any one know how to turn off the feature 
  that includes the bar on the left, when I reply myself?
  
  Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless 
  Broadband
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Rich Comroe 
To: WISPA General List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:07 
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
Against Net Neutrality

why do you do it?

I'm a top poster. I hate having to 
essentially re-read the previous email to find the added reply comments 
(especially when it's a long email and you ultimately just find an added 
"yeah me too" way down at the bottom). I find that incredibly 
annoying. I prefer replies where you pick-out what you're replying to 
and copy it to the top along with your reply. Concise. The 
originals are all there below for reference if you want them, but you don't 
have to scroll down to find the reply. You can more clearly see the 
chain of replies too(when each reply edits the same body, it quickly 
becomes impossible).

I know it's a religious preference / argument 
and there's no right or wrong, only a preference... but 
youwanted to know"why", so ...

peace
Rich

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mark 
  Koskenmaki 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  You guys that post using this incredibly 
  annoying bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c 
  onversational email impossible...
  
  Read on below. comments are 
  prefaced with 
  
  
  North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal 
  correspondence to: mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries 
  to: purchasing at neofast dot netFast Internet, NO 
  WIRES!-
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David Sovereen 
To: WISPA General List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 
PM
    Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
Against Net Neutrality

I respectfully disagree and think that 
WCA's position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate 
their networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality 
legislation opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to 
force open and equal access to all content on the Internet.

 I don't see 
the problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access 
to each other. That, after all... IS WHAT I 
PROVIDE!

How many WISPs on this listare 
limiting P2P traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I 
am.

 Me too, but this has 
little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves 
HOSTING, and that I specifically don't generally allow. 
Terms of Service has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster 
was someone's dream. 

How many WISPs on this list are 
prioritizing VoIP traffic separate from other traffic? I'll 
bite. I am. And I only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from 
my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone 
else.

 I will 
eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes 
to...after all, if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what 
the heck am I? A fraud? 

How many WISPs on this list are filtering 
NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I 
am again.

 
Yeah. Me too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever 
to do with limiting access to content. 

Now the last one, I can't imagine being 
sued over, but I hope you see my point.

These controls are important for me to 
manage my network and ensure a quality of service my customers 
expect.

Net neutrality takes these controls 
away.

 I seriously doubt 
that. 

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-21 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
That's not quite it.   I have never had my OE set to compose html...
There's one more setting.

From the main screen it is Tools - Options - Send (tab)

Uncheck 'reply to messages in the format they were sent or something close
to that.




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!

-
- Original Message - 
From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


Turn off the option to compose E-mail in HTML.

  - Original Message - 
  From: Tom DeReggi
  To: WISPA General List
  Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


  Actually,

  My Outlook Express does the same thing when I reply.  I hate it.  But I do
not know how to turn it off.

  Does any one know how to turn off the feature that includes the bar on the
left, when I reply myself?

  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


why do you do it?

I'm a top poster.  I hate having to essentially re-read the previous
email to find the added reply comments (especially when it's a long email
and you ultimately just find an added yeah me too way down at the bottom).
I find that incredibly annoying.  I prefer replies where you pick-out what
you're replying to and copy it to the top along with your reply.  Concise.
The originals are all there below for reference if you want them, but you
don't have to scroll down to find the reply.  You can more clearly see the c
hain of replies too (when each reply edits the same body, it quickly becomes
impossible).

I know it's a religious preference / argument and there's no right or
wrong, only a preference ... but you wanted to know why, so ...

peace
Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Koskenmaki
  To: WISPA General List
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


  You guys that post using this incredibly annoying bar at the left...
why do you do it?   It makes c onversational email impossible...

  Read on below.   comments are prefaced with 


  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!
  --
---
- Original Message - 
From: David Sovereen
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less
regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how they
want is the right approach.  Net neutrality legislation opens the door for
content companies and your subscribers to force open and equal access to all
content on the Internet.

   I don't see the problem with content companies and
subscribers having equal access to each other.   That, after all... IS WHAT
I PROVIDE!

How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from
other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.

  Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since
peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically don't
generally allow.   Terms of Service has covered hosting forever - since long
before Napster was someone's dream.

How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate
from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I only prioritize VoIP traffic
to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone
else.

  I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to whose
servers it goes to...after all,  if I can't serve my customer's needs, then
what the heck am I?   A fraud?

How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other
traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am again.

  Yeah.   Me too.   Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do
with limiting access to content.

Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you
see my point.

These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure
a quality of service my customers expect.

Net neutrality takes these controls away.

  I seriously doubt that.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-21 Thread Mark Nash

{oops...responded to the wrong message...MODERATOR! MODERATOR!!!}

Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax
- Original Message - 
From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality



you could put a hot tub in there, too...

Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax
- Original Message - 
From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality



That's not quite it.   I have never had my OE set to compose html...
There's one more setting.


From the main screen it is Tools - Options - Send (tab)


Uncheck 'reply to messages in the format they were sent or something 
close

to that.




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!

-
- Original Message - 
From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


Turn off the option to compose E-mail in HTML.

 - Original Message - 
 From: Tom DeReggi

 To: WISPA General List
 Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:34 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


 Actually,

 My Outlook Express does the same thing when I reply.  I hate it.  But I 
do

not know how to turn it off.

 Does any one know how to turn off the feature that includes the bar on 
the

left, when I reply myself?

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


   - Original Message - 
   From: Rich Comroe

   To: WISPA General List
   Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:07 PM
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


   why do you do it?

   I'm a top poster.  I hate having to essentially re-read the previous
email to find the added reply comments (especially when it's a long email
and you ultimately just find an added yeah me too way down at the 
bottom).
I find that incredibly annoying.  I prefer replies where you pick-out 
what
you're replying to and copy it to the top along with your reply. 
Concise.

The originals are all there below for reference if you want them, but you
don't have to scroll down to find the reply.  You can more clearly see 
the c
hain of replies too (when each reply edits the same body, it quickly 
becomes

impossible).

   I know it's a religious preference / argument and there's no right or
wrong, only a preference ... but you wanted to know why, so ...

   peace
   Rich
 - Original Message - 
 From: Mark Koskenmaki

 To: WISPA General List
 Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


 You guys that post using this incredibly annoying bar at the left...
why do you do it?   It makes c onversational email impossible...

 Read on below.   comments are prefaced with 


 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!
 --
---
   - Original Message - 
   From: David Sovereen

   To: WISPA General List
   Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


   I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less
regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how they
want is the right approach.  Net neutrality legislation opens the door 
for
content companies and your subscribers to force open and equal access to 
all

content on the Internet.

  I don't see the problem with content companies and
subscribers having equal access to each other.   That, after all... IS 
WHAT

I PROVIDE!

   How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from
other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.

 Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since
peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically don't
generally allow.   Terms of Service has covered hosting forever - since 
long

before Napster was someone's dream.

   How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate
from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I only prioritize VoIP 
traffic
to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or 
anyone

else.

 I will eventually, and I

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread David Sovereen



I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's 
position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their 
networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation 
opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and 
equal access to all content on the Internet.

How many WISPs on this listare limiting P2P 
traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am.

How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP 
traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I 
only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP 
traffic from Vonage or anyone else.

How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, 
RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am 
again.

Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, 
but I hope you see my point.

These controls are important for me to manage my 
network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect.

Net neutrality takes these controls 
away.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Larry Yunker 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
  List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands for 
  the interests of Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big 
  Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell 
  South, and Verizon RBOCs). With statements like this, I don't 
  believe that the WCA will ever be looking out for the interests unlicensed 
  WISPs.If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to 
  "controlling your own network", you have missed the entire point. 
  Without effective net neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos 
  will own the internet and tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows 
  through it. It will be one more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop 
  operator that can't afford to pay tariffs to get their subscribers access 
  to "premium" content. It will drive the customers of small operators 
  to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos because those networks will be the 
  only "fast" networks or the only ones that have "access" to everything on 
  the internet.- Larry Yunker- Original Message - 
  From: "Peter R." [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "WISPA General 
  List" wireless@wispa.orgSent: Tuesday, 
  June 20, 2006 12:32 PMSubject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net 
  Neutrality WCA Weighs In Against Net 
  Neutrality http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html 
  http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450 
  The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
   down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the 
  pressure  groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress  
  /search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news 
   break, /June 15). Representing about 250 companies in 
  broadband wireless carriage and  manufacturing, WCA has teamed with 
  the recently formed  *NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott 
  Cleland, president of  *Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an 
  "e-forum" for debate but  clearly positions itself among the vocal 
  anti-net-neutrality factions.WCA  claims its motive is to promote 
  growth and innovation in advanced  communications over broadband 
  wireless by protecting the business from  net-neutrality 
  regulation "With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it 
  is imperative that  wireless broadband providers remain free to manage 
  their own networks,"  said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared 
  statement. "Net-neutrality  regulation would discourage innovation and 
  investment in more competitive  broadband choices to all Americans. 
  Our member companies are investing  heavily in WiMAX 
  /search/?query=WiMAX or other '4G' types of  next-generation 
  broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are part  of the 
  competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem." 
  Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable  
  Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National Cable  
   Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States 
  Telecommunications  Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, 
  *Alltel*, *ATT*,  *BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest 
  /search/?query=Qwest  Communications International*, *Sprint*, 
  *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon  /search/?query=Verizon 
  Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*. With the WCA's 
  membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation wireless  broadband 
  companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would  discourage 
  investment, adding, "More innovation and competition are the  
  antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, 

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
I think David is right on.  I remember the peering wars in 95' and they 
didn't last long because people would not put up with it then, and 
internet to the private businesses/individuals was fairly new then.  The 
priority wars will go the same way.  If Qwest doesn't give you a 
reasonable speed to google, then I bet comcast will and customers will 
buys the service that fits their needs.


The pro net neutrality people suggest that 'premium' bandwidth will come 
at a premium price, but there is nothing stopping the cableops and LECs 
from raising their prices today or lowering their SLAs... Nothing except 
the competition that is, and I don't see that going away any time soon.  
As long as there is a demand there will be competition to provide that 
service at a competitive price, atleast up until the time the government 
gets involved with taxes, regulations and subsidies.  I don't think I 
want the FCC regulating the SLA with my customers.


If you cannot control the traffic on your network to benefit the 
majority of your users you are going to see your quality users leaving 
for greener pastures.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

David Sovereen wrote:
I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less 
regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how 
they want is the right approach.  Net neutrality legislation opens the 
door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and 
equal access to all content on the Internet.
 
How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from 
other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.
 
How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate 
from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I only prioritize VoIP 
traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from 
Vonage or anyone else.
 
How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other 
traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am again.
 
Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you see 
my point.
 
These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure a 
quality of service my customers expect.
 
Net neutrality takes these controls away.
 
Dave
 
989-837-3790 x 151

989-837-3780 fax
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.mercury.net http://www.mercury.net
 
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640


- Original Message -
*From:* Larry Yunker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General
List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

The WCA is showing its true colors..  the WCA stands for the
interests of
Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell Carriers
(many of
which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell South, and Verizon
RBOCs).  With
statements like this, I don't believe that the WCA will ever be
looking out
for the interests unlicensed WISPs.

If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to
controlling your
own network, you have missed the entire point.  Without effective
net
neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos will own the
internet and
tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows through it.  It will
be one
more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't
afford to pay
tariffs to get their subscribers access to premium content.  It
will drive
the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and
CableCos because
those networks will be the only fast networks or the only ones
that have
access to everything on the internet.

- Larry Yunker

- Original Message -
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
mailto:wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


 WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

 http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html

http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450

 The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA)
has come
 down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the
pressure
 groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress
 /search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb
news
 break, /June 15).

 Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and
 manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed
 *NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, president of
 *Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an e-forum for
debate but
 clearly positions itself among the vocal anti-net-neutrality
factions.WCA
 claims its motive is to promote growth and innovation in advanced
 communications over broadband

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

I'd say we need to support WCA's post.
In politics it possible to get a double standard to pass.
ILECS / Cable companies need Net Neutrality, wireless providers do not.

Do you know what it would do to our cell phone bills, if Internet enabled 
Cell phones were required to allow users to use application of their choice 
such as IP TV? Call quality could get destroyed.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality



WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html
http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450

The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the pressure 
groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress 
/search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news 
break, /June 15).


Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and 
manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed 
*NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, president of 
*Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an e-forum for debate but 
clearly positions itself among the vocal anti-net-neutrality factions.WCA 
claims its motive is to promote growth and innovation in advanced 
communications over broadband wireless by protecting the business from 
net-neutrality regulation


With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it is imperative that 
wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own networks, 
said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement. Net-neutrality 
regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more competitive 
broadband choices to all Americans. Our member companies are investing 
heavily in WiMAX /search/?query=WiMAX or other '4G' types of 
next-generation broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are part 
of the competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem.


Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable 
Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National Cable  
Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States Telecommunications 
Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*, *ATT*, 
*BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest /search/?query=Qwest 
Communications International*, *Sprint*, *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon 
/search/?query=Verizon Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*.


With the WCA's membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation wireless 
broadband companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would 
discourage investment, adding, More innovation and competition are the 
antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking government 
micromanagement.


The development comes after key *House* committees and a full House floor 
vote passed a new video-franchise and telecom bills after defeating 
repeated amendment attempts to codify stronger net-neutrality laws and to 
give the *Federal Communications Commission* greater powers.


The debate over net neutrality - with many pro and con pressure groups 
frantically trying to get attention - now turns to the *Senate *Committee 
on Commerce Science and Technology, where a massive communications-reform 
bill also allegedly lacks strong net-neutrality provisos as well as to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee that is considering separate net neutrality 
bills in an antitrust, anti-monopoly context (/see related stories in 
today's Telecom Policy Report/).


The Senate Commerce Committee may mark up its draft on Thursday (reschuled 
from tomorrow)  while Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on Antitrust, 
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights that same afternoon has slated a 
hearing on the impact of the proposed ATT/BellSouth merger (in light of 
consolidating telcos becoming a factor in the net-neutrality fight).


--


Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm


--
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] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi
Maybe a better way to do it would be to exclude UNlicensed wireless 
providers from Net Neutrality, but include all other wireless providers :-)


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


The WCA is showing its true colors..  the WCA stands for the interests of 
Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell Carriers (many of 
which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs). 
With statements like this, I don't believe that the WCA will ever be 
looking out for the interests unlicensed WISPs.


If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to controlling your 
own network, you have missed the entire point.  Without effective net 
neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos will own the internet 
and tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows through it.  It will be 
one more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to 
pay tariffs to get their subscribers access to premium content.  It will 
drive the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos 
because those networks will be the only fast networks or the only ones 
that have access to everything on the internet.


- Larry Yunker

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality



WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html
http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450

The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the pressure 
groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress 
/search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news 
break, /June 15).


Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and 
manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed 
*NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, president of 
*Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an e-forum for debate but 
clearly positions itself among the vocal anti-net-neutrality factions.WCA 
claims its motive is to promote growth and innovation in advanced 
communications over broadband wireless by protecting the business from 
net-neutrality regulation


With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it is imperative that 
wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own networks, 
said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement. Net-neutrality 
regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more competitive 
broadband choices to all Americans. Our member companies are investing 
heavily in WiMAX /search/?query=WiMAX or other '4G' types of 
next-generation broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are 
part of the competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem.


Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable 
Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National Cable  
Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States Telecommunications 
Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*, *ATT*, 
*BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest /search/?query=Qwest 
Communications International*, *Sprint*, *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon 
/search/?query=Verizon Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*.


With the WCA's membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation wireless 
broadband companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would 
discourage investment, adding, More innovation and competition are the 
antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking government 
micromanagement.


The development comes after key *House* committees and a full House floor 
vote passed a new video-franchise and telecom bills after defeating 
repeated amendment attempts to codify stronger net-neutrality laws and to 
give the *Federal Communications Commission* greater powers.


The debate over net neutrality - with many pro and con pressure groups 
frantically trying to get attention - now turns to the *Senate *Committee 
on Commerce Science and Technology, where a massive communications-reform 
bill also allegedly lacks strong net-neutrality provisos as well as to 
the Senate Judiciary Committee that is considering separate net 
neutrality bills in an antitrust, anti-monopoly context (/see related 
stories in today's Telecom Policy Report/).


The Senate Commerce Committee may mark up its draft on Thursday 
(reschuled from tomorrow)  while Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on 
Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights that same afternoon has 
slated a hearing on the impact of the proposed ATT/BellSouth merger (in 
light of consolidating

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta


On Jun 20, 2006, at 4:37 PM, David Sovereen wrote:

How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from  
other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.



We don't



How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate  
from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I only prioritize VoIP  
traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from  
Vonage or anyone else.



We don't

How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other  
traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am again.



We don't

Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you  
see my point.


These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure  
a quality of service my customers expect.


Net neutrality takes these controls away.

I don't want government regulated internet service, but at the same  
time I don't agree with your position. We provide a raw internet  
service to our customers. They don't pay us to filter or prioritize  
it in anyway. As such, doing any filtering or prioritizing may be at  
odds with the customer's needs.


Ask yourself why you filter or prioritize in the first place. Almost  
always the answer is oversubscription... you have sold the customer  
more services than you are capable of delivering. There is nothing  
wrong with a best effort service when it is sold as such. On the  
other hand, when you sell a dedicated SLA-based service I believe you  
have no business over subscribing or filtering the service in any way.


-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] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I'd like to point out that it can work the other way, when the telcos and
cabelcos demand a premium above the normal price to be able to access all
services or have your VOIP phone work at all, or watch live video, or any
one of a number of items.

IF you think that backbone providers are going to begin filtering or
prioritizing or deprioritizing traffic, then your scenario may hold, but
unless the backbone provider is also the CONTENT provider, I don't see that
scenario happening.

When or if the big boy providers begin charging a premium for full service
access at the last mile, then I'd say that provides an opportunity for us
independents, not harm.   However, seeing the utter chaos and complete lack
of common sense that has prevailed in and around our industry since it's
inception, I'd say predicting which of the above scenarios holds
true...well... might be an exercise in futility.



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!

-
- Original Message - 
From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


 The WCA is showing its true colors..  the WCA stands for the interests of
 Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell Carriers (many of
 which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs).
With
 statements like this, I don't believe that the WCA will ever be looking
out
 for the interests unlicensed WISPs.

 If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to controlling your
 own network, you have missed the entire point.  Without effective net
 neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos will own the internet
and
 tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows through it.  It will be one
 more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to pay
 tariffs to get their subscribers access to premium content.  It will
drive
 the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos
because
 those networks will be the only fast networks or the only ones that have
 access to everything on the internet.

 - Larry Yunker

 - Original Message - 
 From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


  WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
 
  http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html
  http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450
 
  The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come
  down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the pressure
  groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress
  /search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news
  break, /June 15).
 
  Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and
  manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed
  *NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, president of
  *Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an e-forum for debate but
  clearly positions itself among the vocal anti-net-neutrality
factions.WCA
  claims its motive is to promote growth and innovation in advanced
  communications over broadband wireless by protecting the business from
  net-neutrality regulation
 
  With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it is imperative that
  wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own networks,
  said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement. Net-neutrality
  regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more
competitive
  broadband choices to all Americans. Our member companies are investing
  heavily in WiMAX /search/?query=WiMAX or other '4G' types of
  next-generation broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are
part
  of the competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem.
 
  Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable
  Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National Cable 
  Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States Telecommunications
  Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*, *ATT*,
  *BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest /search/?query=Qwest
  Communications International*, *Sprint*, *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon
  /search/?query=Verizon Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*.
 
  With the WCA's membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation wireless
  broadband companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would
  discourage investment, adding, More innovation and competition are the
  antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking government
  micromanagement.
 
  The development comes after key *House* committees and a full House
floor

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Mark Koskenmaki



You guys that post using this incredibly annoying 
bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c onversational 
email impossible...

Read on below. comments are prefaced 
with 


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

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Sovereen 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's 
  position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their 
  networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation 
  opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and 
  equal access to all content on the Internet.
  
   I don't see the 
  problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access to each 
  other. That, after all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!
  
  How many WISPs on this listare limiting P2P 
  traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am.
  
   Me too, but this has 
  little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, 
  and that I specifically don't generally allow. Terms of Service 
  has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster was someone's 
  dream. 
  
  How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP 
  traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I 
  only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP 
  traffic from Vonage or anyone else.
  
   I will eventually, and 
  I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes to...after all, 
  if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what the heck am I? A 
  fraud? 
  
  How many WISPs on this list are filtering 
  NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am 
  again.
  
   Yeah. Me 
  too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting access 
  to content. 
  
  Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued 
  over, but I hope you see my point.
  
  These controls are important for me to manage my 
  network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect.
  
  Net neutrality takes these controls 
  away.
  
   I seriously doubt 
  that. 
  
  Dave
  
  989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net
  
  129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Larry Yunker 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
Against Net Neutrality
The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands for 
the interests of Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big 
Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell 
South, and Verizon RBOCs). With statements like this, I don't 
believe that the WCA will ever be looking out for the interests 
unlicensed WISPs.If you think that blocking net neutrality is the 
path to "controlling your own network", you have missed the entire 
point. Without effective net neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and 
the CableCos will own the internet and tariff the hell out of the 
traffic that flows through it. It will be one more nail in the 
coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to pay tariffs to get 
their subscribers access to "premium" content. It will drive the 
customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos because 
those networks will be the only "fast" networks or the only ones that 
have "access" to everything on the internet.- Larry 
Yunker- Original Message - From: "Peter R." [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "WISPA General 
List" wireless@wispa.orgSent: 
Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PMSubject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against 
Net Neutrality WCA Weighs In Against Net 
Neutrality http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450 
The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
 down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the 
pressure  groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress  
/search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news 
 break, /June 15). Representing about 250 companies 
in broadband wireless carriage and  manufacturing, WCA has teamed 
with the recently formed  *NETCompetition.org* group organized by 
Scott Cleland, president of  *Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself 
as an "e-forum" for debate but  clearly positions itself among the 
vocal anti-net-neutrality factions.WCA  claims its motive is to 
promote growth and innovation 

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe



why do you do it?

I'm a top poster. I hate having to 
essentially re-read the previous email to find the added reply comments 
(especially when it's a long email and you ultimately just find an added "yeah 
me too" way down at the bottom). I find that incredibly annoying. I 
prefer replies where you pick-out what you're replying to and copy it to the top 
along with your reply. Concise. The originals are all there below 
for reference if you want them, but you don't have to scroll down to find the 
reply. You can more clearly see the chain of replies too(when each 
reply edits the same body, it quickly becomes impossible).

I know it's a religious preference / argument and 
there's no right or wrong, only a preference... but youwanted to 
know"why", so ...

peace
Rich

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mark Koskenmaki 
  
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  You guys that post using this incredibly annoying 
  bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c 
  onversational email impossible...
  
  Read on below. comments are prefaced 
  with 
  
  
  North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal correspondence 
  to: mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries to: purchasing at 
  neofast dot netFast Internet, NO 
  WIRES!-
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David Sovereen 
To: WISPA General List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 
    PM
    Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
Against Net Neutrality

I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's 
position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their 
networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality 
legislation opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to 
force open and equal access to all content on the Internet.

 I don't see the 
problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access to each 
other. That, after all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!

How many WISPs on this listare limiting 
P2P traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I 
am.

 Me too, but this has 
little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves 
HOSTING, and that I specifically don't generally allow. Terms of 
Service has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster was 
someone's dream. 

How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing 
VoIP traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. 
And I only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not 
VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone else.

 I will eventually, 
and I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes to...after 
all, if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what the heck am 
I? A fraud? 

How many WISPs on this list are filtering 
NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am 
again.

 Yeah. Me 
too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting 
access to content. 

Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued 
over, but I hope you see my point.

These controls are important for me to manage 
my network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect.

Net neutrality takes these controls 
away.

 I seriously doubt 
that. 

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Larry Yunker 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
  List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands 
  for the interests of Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other 
  big Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are owned by ATT, 
  Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs). With statements like this, I 
  don't believe that the WCA will ever be looking out for the interests 
  unlicensed WISPs.If you think that blocking net neutrality is the 
  path to "controlling your own network", you have missed the entire 
  point. Without effective net neutrality legislation, the RBOCs 
  and the CableCos will own the internet and tariff the hell out of the 
  traffic that flows through it. It will be one more nail in the 
  coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to pay tariffs to 
  get their subscribers access to "premium" content. It will drive 
  the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos 
  because those networks will be the only "fast" networks or the only 
  ones that h

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.
I'd like to point out that the RBOCs own the backbone, the last mile, 
and the cellular companies, so if they filter or prioritize it should be 
interesting. Word is L3 is buying all fiber so that they can be equals 
with VZ  att.


- Peter

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Sam Tetherow

Responses inline...

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
You guys that post using this incredibly annoying bar at the left...  
why do you do it?   It makes c onversational email impossible...
 
Read on below.   comments are prefaced with 
 
 
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!
-

- Original Message -
*From:* David Sovereen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less
regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks
how they want is the right approach.  Net neutrality legislation
opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force
open and equal access to all content on the Internet.
 
   I don't see the problem with content companies and

subscribers having equal access to each other.   That, after
all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!

Not according to what you reply below.  Limiting P2P and prioritizing 
VOIP is not equal access to all content on the Internet.


 
How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from

other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.
 
  Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since

peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically
don't generally allow.   Terms of Service has covered hosting
forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream.


So you only limit the upload on your peer to peer traffic?

In my opinion it has everything to do with net neutrality.  If VZ can't 
deprioritize VOIP to outside servers you why would you be able to 
deprioritize peer to peer traffic.   Who is to say that P2P traffic is 
less important than VOIP?


 
How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate

from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I only prioritize VoIP
traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from
Vonage or anyone else.
 
  I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to

whose servers it goes to...after all,  if I can't serve my
customer's needs, then what the heck am I?   A fraud?

Again, you are not providing equal access to the internet, you are 
saying that someone's VOIP traffic has a higher priority then my web 
traffic which in turn has a higher priority than someone else's P2P 
traffic.  This seems pretty arbitrary to me.  What if I as a provider 
feel that web and email are top priority over VOIP and P2P?  After all I 
am in the business of providing internet service not voice.  What if I 
prioritize my VOIP traffic only since it only has to make it to my NOC 
before it switches to POTs whereas vonage is eating my general IP 
bandwidth?  Am I allowed to charge clients extra for dedicated VOIP 
prioritization?


 
How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other

traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am again.
 
  Yeah.   Me too.   Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do

with limiting access to content.

Yes it does, you are blocking netbios and RPC, what makes them any 
different then VOIP or P2P or streaming video?


Another question, am I allowed to maintain a blacklist and block at my 
edge router?  What if time warner makes it on my blacklist or vonage for 
some reason, can I now be fined by the FCC for not providing equal 
access?  What about outgoing or incoming email?  Do I have to allow it all?


 
Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you

see my point.
 
These controls are important for me to manage my network and

ensure a quality of service my customers expect.
 
Net neutrality takes these controls away.
 
  I seriously doubt that. 

Why?  If the FCC can say you are not allowed to prioritize one service 
over another how can you have control of the traffic and utilization on 
your network?


 
Dave
 
989-837-3790 x 151

989-837-3780 fax
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.mercury.net http://www.mercury.net
 
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640


- Original Message -
*From:* Larry Yunker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General
List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

The WCA is showing its true colors..  the WCA stands for the
interests of
Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell
Carriers (many of
which incidentally are owned

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Larry Yunker



Dave,

I can see your points and I agree that 
OVER-regulation could lead to the sort of harms that you list. 
Unfortunately, the alternative of NO-regulation would enablebackbone 
providers of the internet toweed out the smaller providers by 
deprioritizing traffic, blocking ports, charging tolls, etc. I think that 
the correct course would be a MIDDLE GROUND of regulation which would 
differentiate between backbone neutrality and last-mile neutrality.

Since the success of the internethas long 
beenbased on the premise of non-discriminatory peered-backbone access, I 
think the goal should be toprohibit backbone providers from discriminating 
based on type-of traffic, source-of traffic, or destination-of traffic. 
This means that in an ideal scenario, the 
government would prevent the likes of L3/ATT/Verizon from even looking at 
the type of traffic that is flowing through the backbone. They don't need 
to know what the traffic is. Rather,their business is to get that 
traffic from point A to point B and make sure that there is switching/routing 
capacity. They shouldnot be positioned to decideWHO gets to 
have the best routes or WHO gets to have the fastest response time. If 
this is allowed, the only providers left standing in 2010 will be the backbone 
providers themselves (anyone that has EVER dealt with a RBOC as a competitor 
should be able to attest to the fact that RBOCs sell their own services to 
themselves MUCH cheaper than they sell those services to their 
competitors). 


I realize that taking this stance against 
"Tiered-Access Internet" forecloses on all of the promised INNOVATIONS that will 
lead totrueend-to-end QoSon the public internet. Yet, 
I'd rather havetoday's internet with non-discriminatory routing rather 
than"tomorrow's internet"monopolized by 
Ma-Bell.

Please note:I think that last-mile providers 
ought to be free to offer whatever limited/prioritized/deprioritized traffic TO 
THEIR OWN SUBSCRIBERS as they deem necessary. If you want to 
blockyour own subscribers from getting P-to-P traffic, running servers, or 
downloading moviesthatshould be your prerogative.Perhaps 
you should be requiredto disclose this "limited-access" internet service 
to your subscribers, but you should be free to set up your ownpolicies 
regardingthe traffic that flows to/from YOUR OWN CLIENTS. I see no 
reason that the government needs to regulate this sort of activity beyond 
requiring ISPs to divulge content filtering/blocking policies. I figure it 
this way: if you are a last-mile internet provider and you are blocking content 
to/from your clients, the clientsusually have to opportunity to switch to 
another provider. IF you are the only provider of service in the area, 
thenone could argue that free market economics will drive new competitors 
to enter if/when there are enough unsatisfied customers.

The core policy reason to regulate backbone 
providers is to ensure that internet traffic can continue to freely travel the 
globe without unnecessary limitations. This same policy reason does not 
apply to last-mile providers because end-users/consumers/content-providers can 
all CHOOSE their last-mile provider whereas we cannot choose the path that our 
packets take when crossing the backbone of the internet! The real question 
is whether we can get legislators to understand this CRUCIAL 
difference.

- Larry


- Original Message - 

  From: 
  David Sovereen 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:37 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's 
  position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their 
  networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation 
  opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and 
  equal access to all content on the Internet.
  
  How many WISPs on this listare limiting P2P 
  traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am.
  
  How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP 
  traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I 
  only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP 
  traffic from Vonage or anyone else.
  
  How many WISPs on this list are filtering 
  NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am 
  again.
  
  Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued 
  over, but I hope you see my point.
  
  These controls are important for me to manage my 
  network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect.
  
  Net neutrality takes these controls 
  away.
  
  Dave
  
  989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net
  
  129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Larry Yunker 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
    PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
Agai

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


 Responses inline...

   - Original Message -
  *From:* David Sovereen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
  *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM
  *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
 
  I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less
  regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks
  how they want is the right approach.  Net neutrality legislation
  opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force
  open and equal access to all content on the Internet.
 
 I don't see the problem with content companies and
  subscribers having equal access to each other.   That, after
  all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!
 
 Not according to what you reply below.  Limiting P2P and prioritizing
 VOIP is not equal access to all content on the Internet.

There is equal access.I limit the amount of data transferred.

 
 
  How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from
  other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.
 
Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since
  peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically
  don't generally allow.   Terms of Service has covered hosting
  forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream.
 
 So you only limit the upload on your peer to peer traffic?

 In my opinion it has everything to do with net neutrality.  If VZ can't
 deprioritize VOIP to outside servers you why would you be able to
 deprioritize peer to peer traffic.   Who is to say that P2P traffic is
 less important than VOIP?

P2P works no matter jitter, latency, etc.VOIP does not.   Even video has
issues.


 
  How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate
  from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I only prioritize VoIP
  traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from
  Vonage or anyone else.
 
I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to
  whose servers it goes to...after all,  if I can't serve my
  customer's needs, then what the heck am I?   A fraud?
 
 Again, you are not providing equal access to the internet, you are
 saying that someone's VOIP traffic has a higher priority then my web
 traffic which in turn has a higher priority than someone else's P2P
 traffic.  This seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Because you're not involved and you, as a content provider, have NO interest
in my network.  My customer, however, DOES want his VOIP phone to work, as
well as your pages to load.   Both can happen with QOS employed, no?   Your
web page loads no matter what.   His VOIP phone needs specific network
qualities to work right.

  What if I as a provider
 feel that web and email are top priority over VOIP and P2P?

I don't give a rip.   I only care about the CUSTOMER wants.

 After all I
 am in the business of providing internet service not voice.  What if I
 prioritize my VOIP traffic only since it only has to make it to my NOC
 before it switches to POTs whereas vonage is eating my general IP
 bandwidth?  Am I allowed to charge clients extra for dedicated VOIP
 prioritization?

I dunno.  Why don't you ask them?

 
 
  How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other
  traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am again.
 
Yeah.   Me too.   Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do
  with limiting access to content.
 
 Yes it does, you are blocking netbios and RPC, what makes them any
 different then VOIP or P2P or streaming video?

My customers ASK me to protect them from malevolent attack.   They do,
however, want thier phone and video to work and work smoothly, at least to
not have my network make them NOT work properly.


 Another question, am I allowed to maintain a blacklist and block at my
 edge router?  What if time warner makes it on my blacklist or vonage for
 some reason, can I now be fined by the FCC for not providing equal
 access?  What about outgoing or incoming email?  Do I have to allow it
all?

Have you asked your customers if they want you to restrict thier access to
TimeWarner's IP blocks?

 
 
  Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you
  see my point.
 
  These controls are important for me to manage my network and
  ensure a quality of service my customers expect.
 
  Net neutrality takes these controls away.
 
I seriously doubt that.
 
 Why?  If the FCC can say you are not allowed to prioritize one service
 over another how can you have control of the traffic and utilization on
 your network?

Because as far as I can tell, the whole debate has nothing to do with any of
this, but about