Well, that the big misunderstanding right there.

When someone sells 1 mbps of speed, who said that meant they are selling the customer continuous 1 mbps for what ever use they want? And just because we sell them a 1 mbps last mile, who says that we are selling them that capacity accross our backbone network?

Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts.

When I sell 1 mbps to a resident, I in no way represent I am selling the subscriber 1 mbps of capacity. I'm selling him that speed. There is a nig difference. If they want that guaranteed capacity, they can buy it from me per bit, or pay for a CIR plan that guarantees that capacity.

Also, content providers practice limiting individual connections' (end user's) speed to their content servers. Why should they have the right to limit our consumer's speed? They argue to protect their servers and Internet connections. How is that any different for an ISP to limit connections to their end users, to protect their Internet connections. Who really owns the Internet connections to consumers? Is it the consumer or the ISP? Last time I checked its the ISP that holds the long term loan covering the cost of that infrastructure, not the subscriber. If the end user cancels, its the ISP that is left covering the bill. I argue it is the ISP that owns that connection, and should be able to do what ever they want with their connection.

There is a big difference controling traffic of your users, versus blocking traffic from other Broadband providers.

Net Neutrality should address one topic and one topic only, prevent one Broadband provider from blocking traffic from another broadband provider in an attempt to harm the other Broadband provider or have a competitive advantage over that other Broadband provider, by leveraging its size and share of the market. There needs to be free non-discriminary exchange of data between Broadband providers, so that competitions can be abundant and consumers have choice, and can select based on the accomplishments and merit added by those providers.

Content Providers nor Consumers have the right to control where and who they send data to, in my opinion. Its no different than a property owner determining who their tenants can and can not have access to, and who can and can not bring cable on to their property.

VOIP providers most likely won't share my view, as they want a free ride. However, I beleive VOIP providers would not be harmfully effected by this, as all it would mean is that they must make partnerships with ISPs. There are 7000 ISPs out there ready to accept partnerships. Whats wrong with that. UNfortuneately, the idea that a VOIP content provider should ahve free reign to sell to anyone, such as through best Buy and Circuit cities, regardless of which ISP used, is a flawed model for competition. The reason is that the most popular and largest VOIP providers will be the one that gets the deal with Circuit Cities and Best Buys, and the industry will get lopsided, almost like a market driven self created monopoly. Forcing VOIP providers to make deals with ISPs, will create the opportunity for more different VOIP providers to be successfull and have a peice of the pie. It will also guaranteee that consumers can't as easilly be blindsided by misrepresenting marketing material. It will guarantee that VOIP has a better chance to survuve will good QOS because attention will be given by the broadband provider to make sure it is there.

in another view, maybe ethically, its the content providers that should get a free ride. And its the subscribers that should be getting billed. But we all know, the uproar that will happen when we try and charge the consumer. The truth is the consumer has such a gross misunderstanding of how the industry works and what it is they have bought when subscribing to a broadband service, its almost impossible to change the perception at this point. We owe that to the huge marketing efforts of Cable and ILECs :-( So its not about ethics anymore. Its about survival, and how to make it work. And that most likely means charging content providers, whether its right or not.

But one thing I can tell you for sure, is its not the Broadband provider taht should pay for it. Nobody should be able to force me to mold the product that I sell into something other than what I want to sell. Its like going to a retial store and the governemnt forcing the owner to only be allowed to sell cashmere instead of cotton, but requiring them to sell it at the same cost as the cotton, regardless of the fact that the cashmere has a higher cost than the cotton did. Think about it, it would be for the common good of the consumer. Every American would have the opportunity to get more for less. Could you imagine the uproar if the governemnt attempted to do that Nation wide? The problem with that plan is with the exception of the Cashmere companies who would get filthy rich over night, most Retail stores would soon go out of business. And consumers would get cheated in the long run, because there would no longer be any where to buy Cashmere either.

How is Cashmere and Cotton any different than the flavors of Broadband than many provider offer? An ISP has the right to carry inventory just like any other industry.

In the above example, I am defining the product that consumers are buying as flavors of broadband connectivity, (burst, MIR, CIR, Best effort, oversubscriber 1000 to 1, over subscribed 1 to 2, etc.), and in no way does the INternet content ever come into play in the arguement, nor should it. The reason is that Broadband providers don't necessaarilly sell content, they sell broadband products. Content is not their business, and really are irrelevant arguements. But if they want to sell content as well, so what? Shouldn't they have the right, to add that product to their port folio. When I have an agreement between me the provider and the consumer, it is an agreement between us two parties, and NOWHERE does it include an understanding with any third party content provider. I don't see their signature. They are not part of the contract and ahve no right regarding it, and the consumer has no rights under the contract greater than the rights given within that contract.

Who say "Internet Access" is defined as "Content"? The "Internet" is a physical "Network". And to guarantee the original intent of the Internet, the only thing we must guarantee is the "Internetworking" between members of the Internet. Therefore giving those that want to share content and receive content a mechanism to do so. NOT A GUARANTEE TO DO SO! The INternet is a machanism for Interconnections, not an intity to take over other's networks. Should a University no longer beable to manage their own network, because it gets connected to the Internet? How is that any different than a Local ISP managing the subscribers on its network? Some Universities are larger than soem small ISPs.

This is where the difference is... Should Safeway be allowed to choose which products Giant is allowed to sell to its consumers? This now being not only an analogy for content, but also for speed limiting. If I want to sell my clients the 1 mbps CIR product, I don't have the abilty if the ILEC blocks and slows down my traffic to them, based on it comming from me the Provider, thus preventing fair competition.

Whats important to understand here above all is... As long as consumers have choice of providers, there is an effect market pressure to make sure Consumers are not cheated and can continue to access content. Content providers are not at risk currently. Anyone can setup Content providing anywhere, anytime, easilly. Broadband Connectivity providers on the other hand do not have that same luxury. Competitive Broadband providers MUST be protected at all costs. By protecting the Third Party Broadband providers, maintaining competition within connectivity, by default indirectly, consumers are protected, and ultimately Content providers will have many option for servcie delivery. The second third party connectivity providers are extinct, the Content provider will not be far from it. The reason is a Monopoly is often above the law. You can't hold monoply responsible when doing so will result in the destruvtion of service for many consumers, it will kill industry and the economy. Both ILECS and Microsoft have proven this over and over again. Once they got control, there is no tiurning back, and they will make the rules that they see fit. What do you do when the ILECs desides they are going to partner with just one content provider? Do you think teh Governemnt will be able to stop them once they own the market? When there can only be one, whats the chance that you will be it?

If you want to save the content provider, the best way to do it is make legislation that protects the third party connectivity proivider, NOT the content provider. There is no free lunch for the Content provider anymore than for anyone else.

Net Neutrality is about connectivity provider rights, not consumer rights or content provider rights.

My take on Net Neutrality. No NOT save the Internet, Save the Third Party Connectivity Providers that allow it to be an Internet. My fear is that one day the Internet will go away, but because it will become the Verizon or SBC Network.

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

----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you don't have to pay for it.


George Rogato wrote:

It is a stretch peter.

But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the provider will have increased costs.

Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops lower theirs? Not likely.

The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content can't get a free ride.

So what should we do?


Peter R. wrote:

That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money?

If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model.
Isn't there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month?
How about 30 days notice to affect a price change?

- Peter

George Rogato wrote:

I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem.

But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get ALL their tv that way.

Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your customers.

Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got there be enough to handle that type of traffic?
Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this?

What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build local infrastructure?

I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be saying then?


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