If Google wants to be faster, let them buy more T-3s or more peering, or whatever-don't screw with packet priority...

John

Travis Johnson wrote:
Hi,

The flip side is that you are selling a customer a connection. That is how YOU are making your money... why do you care what they run over it? Does it matter if it's IPTV or doing an FTP file transfer?

However, I really don't think this is going to affect the "smaller" operators. This bill was designed for people like UUnet, AT&T, Sprint, etc. so they can start doing a "tiered" billing (in hopes of making more money for the same amount of bandwidth). I also heard that Google and some other players were possibly supporting this idea, in hopes that they would be able to pay for faster net speeds. (i.e. when someone does a Google search it would be "faster" because Google is paying AT&T or whomever for faster access than say Yahoo or whoever).

It is a bad idea all the way around. I can see no benefit to the average Internet user, and only more headaches for the ISP's.

Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:

While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband providers network.

If there is any application that I can think of that changes the rules of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say you sold a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no ISP has sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a small percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or had in mind that this type of usage would be common place when he first sold his services and set pricing.

Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if we all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows movies-television shows at the same time across our network. That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video have a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to both our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee?

Anyone else want to argue this?

It's a good subject that we should be discussing.

George

Jack Unger wrote:

Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (AT&T, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are "allowed" to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone providers "approve". This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to "Save the Internet".

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I urge each one of you to:

1. Read the website <http://www.savetheinternet.com/>

2. Do your own additional research on "Net Neutrality", the "First Amendment of the Internet" - based on the First Amendment to the American Constitution - Freedom of Speech.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of "Net Neutrality"

4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save the Internet.

5. If you disagree, take action to support your position.

6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your position.


So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members

I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone.

Thank you for listening,
                         jack




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Reply via email to