Charles,
Some very good points.
However, lets look at it from another angle. What message is the VOIP
wholesale provider sending, with their currently mentality, for them to
decide who they will and will not allow to play in the VOIP space? More or
less, I consider CommPartners an RBOC equivellent of VOIP. They are
discriminating on which ISPs can and can't use their VOIP. They are saying,
we'll give your competitors the Cable Companies and CLECs access to our VOIP
network to compete against you, but we will not give you access to our VOIP
network to defend yourselves, unless you PAYS US. Thats like Mafia
protection money, in my mind.
The CommPartners of the world are starting the war. They decide to take the
end users for themselves or their preferred partners.
So with Eye for an eye mentality.... If they restrict me from their network,
why should I not restrcit them from mine?
This is not an issue of legislation. This is an issue of market pressure. Do
we support Wholeslae partners that are discriminary to our own industry that
is our life blood?
You could argue that the CommPartners aren't descriminary because they
equally charge every one huge initiation fees. But then again, I could
argue that that same mentality didn't fly when the Cable Companies denied
ISPs access to their fiber, arguing they equally gave ISPs the option to pay
million for the access. Same principle just different scale. I could argue
that I wasn't being descriminary if I equally was charging all VOIP
providers the same fee for optimization.
What MCI did was more exceptable. They did not disallow partners. They just
had different plans, based on the partners volume. So the partners could get
better terms as the increased their dedication to the business and volume.
But didn't need to abandon the initial model when they reached that size.
At what point does a service provider (VOIP) get to the size that they have
a strategic advantage above all other providers in the space, that they
should be treated the same as a connectivity wholesale provider / monopoly
such as a RBOC?
The second a vendor of any type, starts saying I'm going to allow these guys
but not these guys, things can get ugly. Its not a problem if the ISP
mutually does not select that wholesale provider. But what when that
provider gains enough market share, and the ISP would have wanted that
partnership to be competitive? In my mind, someone is either with me, or
against me. And if not with me, they are a threat, because their success
could help my competitors, and this is a ruthless competitive world. If
someone is not with me, than in my mind they are on their own, and anything
goes, because I have no obligation to support someone that has chosen not to
support me by terms I consider fair.
I think everyone in this industry has to think really hard who their allies
are and who is their competition is. Supporting the competition, in the long
run could mean death to yourself eventually. We need to support the people
that support us as an industry.
I am not passing judgement on which companies should or shouldn't be
supported, nor am I passing judgement on the method that should be used to
support or fight back against companies that are our competitors.
I'm just saying that the purpose of groups like WISPA, is that there is
strength in numbers and unity. And we need to use that unity to demand
competitive advantage in this industry.
I've seen little negotiations/advantages won for the membership benefit by
leveraging WISPA's weight as a group. I'd like to see more of that take
place. I personally, can;t use WISPA's weight to move forward my
negotiations independantly, because I am not authorized to do so on WISPA's
behave.
This is not meant to be a complaint regarding WISPA, just a suggestion on
possible goals for WISPA.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:34 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "bigdumbpipe
provider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider(html formatted for
easier reading)
<snip>
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
</snip>
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
PROTECTED] if
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
position
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
network
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
-Charles
-------------------------------------------
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
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.inetsouth.com
www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts)
318-728-8600 - Rayville
318-728-9600
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
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_
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
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/
