Not sure how you see any kind of 
parallel between adding priority to one traffic and not another, vs 
blocking a certain class of traffic.

The second seems almost a natural progression of the first

Take for example the CLEC/ILEC models

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Technology Architects

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

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote:

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

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

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

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

Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
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


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

Reply via email to