The biggest fear that I have for this country, is that Consumers will buy into the Triple Play from a single provider. The intent of dominent proviers is already evident, Verizon pulling out copper when installing Fiber, no need to share anymore. The complaints from consumers (lack of QOS / Support) are evident for companies that try and take control and do it themselves. For example a community built new, that the developer decided to deploy only fiber under their control to the homes, with home owners having no choice for Phone, TV, Cable other than the Home Developer's services. With of course the exception if Wireless providers that can not be stopped or blocked from getting to the consumers. (Otard, the best thing that ever happened for residential and wireless. To bad there is still trees and hills :-)

The scare is that if ALL communications to a user can be controlled by one intity, or stopped by one provider's failure, what liabilities and risks open up? In a war, bomb Verizon HQ, and a user is hopeless. If the Monopoly of all Communications (Internet, phone, TV) has control to influence, how quickly will they take that advantage to mold and influence the consumers in a biased way. And how would a consuymer learn of this deception, when all communication was delivered and censored by this one enitity?

The advantage of having seperate Video, is there is a whole nother set of rules, required to uphold the ultimate purposes of video, that may not be the same purposes as for Internet. If a Monopoly took control of any one media, the other media is still avaialble for Consumers to get an alternate view, and alternate option for Uptime.

Think about it, War was declared or a flood had just happened. The tripple play provider just went down for a no-related technical reason. How would consumers get the message? No Voice, no Video, no Internet! Thank God for RADIO! Well that won't last for long. Once there is enough capacity for Video, delivering Broadband RADIO is a peice of cake. That will be the next industry to get destroyed.

There are somethings that are meant, or I should say NEED to be seperate. At least 1 out of 3. I personally believe that no Connectivity provider should be allowed to provide more than 2 out of the 3 core commmunication services to the Consumer. This is for protection of the Consumer, to force consumers to have redundant communications.

I beleive that every thing possible should be done to protect the Cable Franchises, to keep services seperate. And I think Cable Franchises should be prevented from offering Phone services. The reason is that Communication, is a different topic than Content. A phone line is NOT content, it is a communication media. Nobody should have a protected advantage to provide all three communcation medias.

The actual phone converstaion is content. I do not believe it is right, to be allowed to block the content, what conversations are allowed to be discussed on that phone call. But blocking who can offer the services to consumers is fair game. Franchise protects consumers by requiring certain requirements of those providers. The protected providers by taking a utility status, can not be influences by profits related in third party verticle businesses. Could you imaging the uproar, if the local Power company, was allowed to control which search engine you could use, and what communications you could participate in? If you didn't pay your long distance bill, they could CUT YOUR POWER. Think of the ramifications.

I'll be the first to jump on the bandwagon of teh Tripple Play the yfirst day I ahve the capabilty, but not because I think it is right, but because it will be the only way to protect my own survival based on current legislation trends, and my subscribers will be better off with my Ethics, as a local provider in the community, than a large national conglomerate, where the customer is just a number.

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

----- Original Message ----- From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

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?


Travis Johnson wrote:

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.


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.


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".

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

1. Read the website <>

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.

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.

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,

WISPA Wireless List:



WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to