Title: Message
"the Internet is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality).  "
I fully agree that the above statement should be. However what is the true definaition of the Internet, and what is considered the doorway to the Internet?
Because I connect to the Internet, and I transport my customers data to the Internet, does not mean that my network is in fact the Internet.  I'm not a tier1 Internet transit provider.  I believe it is wrong for a Tier1 national Internet backbone provider to discriminate traffic.
However, that is not what most WISPs do. There is a difference between "Off-Net" and "On-Net" traffic.   I operate a private transport network, just like IBM (business secure dialup network from years back), or Compuserve did years back.  Should the fact that I provide a gateway to the INternet mean that I as well need to live by the rules of the FREE INternet? You know the FREE Internet, the one given to society from the governement (ARPANET).  There is a reason that the subsidize Internet should stay FREE, it was partially paid for by the public and tax payer money.  Or examples like MCI given the right to own and control the MAE-Easts and such.
Maybe we should say that I should ahve uninhibited FREE access to your LAN? What the difference between a corporation's Private LAN or WAN and My WISP private transport network?  The corporate private network also connects to the Internet and acts as a gateway to the Internet. 
I'd argue that a WISP is infact a value added connectivity service, just liek IBM, to offer an inhnaced feature over typical Internet. A enhanced low latency direct path that by-passes the city's local congestion on wired networks, the Internet.   I actually advertise my service to be called "IntAirNet" the network that runs parallel to the Internet in the Skies above. I do not advertsie my services as Internet service, I call it IntAirNet. Why should I be enslaven by the rules of the Internet, thats not what I offer.  I offer an accellerated path across my private network to get to the Internet.  I should be able to control what goes across that network, or how can I truly guarantee that it stays an accelerated path to the INternet. I ahve a premium service that I require people to pay extra for for premium service. Maybe that means they need to use my VOIP service, if the want to use VOIP.
Why should small private network operators with no subsidees or priveledges be bundled in with the mamonth ISPs, Telco, and Cable companies that are completely different situations all togeather.  ONce you reach a certain size and have market control or monopolies a different set of rules need to apply. Otherwise consumers are at way to high a risk. And the decissions the Mamonths make way to big an effect on the economy.
How quickly people forget these little details.  Oh, by the way I've got subsidees for the last 50 years, Oh by the way lets forget that, and have it to my self now.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Wu
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:43 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb pipeprovider"vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (htmlformatted for easier reading)

You seem to be taking this beyond what anyone has stated.  There may
be those that say the things that you claim above, however what you
said was that "...preference of one's own traffic...is not that much
different than..." and you went on to show a link to a story that
was NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing.  That is what I was pointing

For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going beyond "topic debate" to "personal attacks" -- so I will restate my original point (which I may not have been completely clear on b/c this is a topic that I have been thinking of / examining for quite some time now, and things that seem obviously clear to me may not be so for a casual observer)

Read the following article and tell me what you think

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 Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets?  If you think 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 extortion.
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). 

The it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network argument

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.

A senior telecommunications executive said yesterday that Internet service providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web sites or services priority in reaching computer users, a controversial system that would significantly change how the Internet operates.

William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.

Or, Smith said, his company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that its service can operate with the same quality as BellSouth’s offering.

Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

Network Neutrality is the concept that network operators provide free and non-discriminatory transport on their networks between the endpoints of the Internet. This has been a basic concept and function of the Internet since it was invented, and is adopted by the FCC in these four principles to ensure that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable and accessible to all consumers:

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Now, lets open the floor for discussion...

Technology Architects

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