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
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
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
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
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <firstname.lastname@example.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?
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
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
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: email@example.com
WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org