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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me give an example... Just recently one of my towns supported a FREE hotspot in the back yard of one of my cell sites (for paid service), covering about a square half mile. The government agreed to pay the monthly fee for the Internet connection, and landlords donated the roof space, and a private non-profit paid for the equipment. What was ironic was the broadband connection was a DSL line, which most likely has an acceptable use policy NOT TO SHARE TO END USERS. So the governemnt publically indorsed stealing service (from the DSL provider). I could have given away free access myself, If I wanted to steal service to give away. I instead did it the legal way, and responsible way. Whats ironic is I still would have given it a way if I was asked to get the press benefit, if I had the right to block what type of usew that FREE service would have, so there was an up sell for my premium paid service. After all I have to pay my bills some how, and that cell site was costing me near $2000 a month in reoccuring fees.

The second the tables turn, and someone wants to control how the small independant ISP controls its own network, its no longer a good idea.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 10:30 AM
Subject: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

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

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

Broadband Challenge

Broadband Challenge Scorecard

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

Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee

WISPA Wireless List:



Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005

WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to