The way I see it is this:   (automatic insertion of my .o2 cents)

  If Bell South can charge people extra for added services I can too. 
You pay extra for call waiting, call forwarding, call blocking...etc - - 
- you pay extra on my internet service to have me give your VoIP packets 
prioritization! My packet prioritization is an extra added "value" 
service that I am not required to do  - I offer it as a service to my 
PAYING clients.

< beating chest & flailing arms wildly >  :-P

Well said (note, I am still undecided on which side of the fence to sit on)
To summarize, the statement could be as follows:

"I built this network with my blood, sweat and tears, and I'll be @[EMAIL 
I'm gonna submit to governmental regulation that forces me to ensure the
competitors / others can freeload off of my hard work"

However, there are several things to be aware of when taking on this

For starters, it is worth noting that generally speaking, very few of the
more successful (I define success in terms of profitability) WISPs are
actually "pureplay WISPs" (now, there will always be an exception, someone
like Matt Larsen or Dorian Banks comes to mind) -- but the majority of guys
(e.g., Scriv, R Harnish, Marlon, Travis Johnson, Sam Rozenthal, Paul Diem,
etc) can be better classified as connectivity / networking service
providers...broadband wireless, along with DSL, dial-up, computer support,
etc just happens one means of servicing a paying customer (basically, it
boils down to cost economics, as in I, the operator, will use whatever
technology is best to provide an acceptable level of service to meet my
customer's requirements)

However, my options will change dramatically (for better or worse is a
different debate) over the next few years if we are to support the ideas of
the above statement.  Going along this line of reasoning (pushing towards
intermodal competition) -- it's only a matter of time before the ILEC can
theoretically cut off all of my resold services (in this case, dial-up, DSL,
T1s, ISDN, Frame Relay) and block any/and all access you have to their

So, the thought that needs to be remembered is is that if I start giving
preference (traffic wise) to certain partners/vendors/alliances because they
will pay me money, I am setting the precendence for losing access to the
copper infrastructure (no more dial-up, T1s, DSL).

Now, the big question worth debating is what's better off for the
operator...e.g., will the additional revenue from collecting tolls/fees for
"premium value added services" offset the loss from being denied access


Technology Architects

-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Mac Dearman
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumbpipe
provider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for
easier reading)

Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts)
318-728-8600 - Rayville

Butch Evans wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote:
>> For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going
>> beyond "topic debate" to "personal attacks" -- so I will restate my
> If you are referring to my comment, you are missing the point.  I am
> not, in any way, attacking you personally.  I am simply saying that 
> you are overstating what I see others saying.  If you take it 
> personally, you should re-read what I posted.
>> Read the following article and tell me what you think

>> their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full
> I'm not certain what you want to know.  Personally (and this is
> probably not a popular opinion here), I think that if the network 
> operator has the ability to offer a premium network service, they 
> should be allowed to do that.  I believe that I, as a network 
> operator, should be allowed the same freedom.  At the same time, I 
> think that there should be NO PUBLIC MONEY involved in the pool here.
>> Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the
>> following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the 
>> "prioritization" and/or "discrimination (or blocking taken to the
> Prioritization of "X" is NOT discrimination of "not X".  THAT is the
> point I was making before.  No matter how many times you say it, or 
> how many ways you put it, it does not change a simple fact.
>> Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets?  If you think
> Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination.  For instance, I block
> LOTS of traffic.  I block ALL traffic to and from known "hacker 
> havens".  I do not accept mail from certain servers.  I only allow 
> certain volumes of P2P traffic to flow over my network.  These things 
> enhance my service for my subscribers.  I have a few customers who 
> have opted to move on to other ISPs as a result of these decisions.  
> That is their choice, and in the end, it benefits my remaining subs 
> all the more.  The fact is, there has been customer movement in both 
> directions.  I have moved several customer ONTO my network for the 
> same reason others have left.
>> about it, prioritizing "certain my preferred packets" across my
>> physical network is really no different than discriminating 
>> (depreferencing or blocking) my competitors -- in fact, the Network 
>> Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would argue that "allowing" certain 
>> providers to pay for prioritized / privilege access is
> Ok..now it's time for a personal attack.  Those guys are KOOKS.
>> The topic of debate that I am addressing is the argument between
>> "it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network so I can do whatever I want" vs. "the 
>> Internet 
>> is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality).
> I have no problem with this debate.  I think it is a silly debate, but
> there are others who will argue this till they are blue in the face.  
> I don't have time to do that, so I will most likely bow out and watch 
> from afar, as I have been doing.
>> SBC started it, now BellSouth is getting into the act. Two articles
>> (1, 2) highlight comments made by William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth, 
>> about how he'd really like to be able to charge internet companies 
>> for priority access to his network and customers.
> While I believe SBC (and BS <-- Is it just me, or does THIS
> abbreviation belong with ALL the RBOCs?) would be shooting themselves 
> in the foot, they ought to be free to attempt to do this. Again, they 
> should be held accountable for what they have built with PUBLIC MONEY.
>> Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge
> KOOKS!  I can only agree with about 25% of what they say.  Even that
> is a liberal guess.  Here are my retorts to the KOOK statements.
>> 1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of
>> their choice;
> Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide
> which network operator offers them the best "bang for their buck".
>> 2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
>> choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
> Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide 
> which network operator offers them the best "bang for their buck".
>> 3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices
>> that do not harm the network; and
> Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide 
> which network operator offers them the best "bang for their buck".
>> 4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,
>> application and service providers, and content providers.
> Hmm...1 out of 4...pretty close to 25% as I said above.
>> Now, lets open the floor for discussion...
> Do that.  I will watch from the "woodwork".
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