"Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination. "

Well that depends how you do it and look at it.
I do not believe in outright blocking completely. Allowing the call to go through in some capacity, does not hurt the consumer hard. 911 must still go through,etc. However, I pefer to suggest blocking by slowing down traffic. As a result only the QOS of the call goes down. Which incourages the Provider to pay up or play fair, for them to ahve adequate QOS, and equivellent service to the premium service I offer my clients with our own service. Do you really feel you should have to give competitors better service possibly than you give your own paying clients? I'd control it so my clients lways has a distinquishable improved quality of service.

Is that wrong? Whats the difference really from prioritizing traffic versus slowing traffic? In directly it the same results. If I prioritize my traffic, by default the others traffic gets shoved behind and slowed, if I purposely slow down competitor's traffic it reserves bandwdith so that my customers do not get a degrated service level inadvertently. Slowing down may be a bit more agressive, but noe the less its the same result. The reasons is that by slowing down competitors traffic, there is a larger chance that the priority speed given to my subscriber will actually work. Its protection measures. Prioritzing on the other hand is not always doable based on limitations on the technology and nature of TCPIP.

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

----- Original Message ----- From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)

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".

Butch Evans
BPS Networks  http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

Reply via email to