After attending the Freedom to Connect conference, I was able to get a very up close and personal look at the people who are strongly supporting the Net Neutrality concepts. I believe that the intention is to keep the status quo of the Internet, and make sure that we will all be able to get the content that we want with a minimum of control/blockage/prioritization, etc. However, there are a couple of distinctions that need to be made.

#1) "Last mile" networks that are built with private, non-government money - should not be FORCED to follow "common-carrier" guidelines. I.E. - I build and paid for my own network, and if I want to block port 10000 and break Vonage from working, I should be able to do that. Sucks for Vonage, but it would suck even more if the management of private networks was controlled by legislators. Any new network construction that gets any kind of economic development or government assistance in the form of tax credits or breaks should have network neutrality mandated into it - or they don't get the assistance.

#2) There should be a set of services that do fall under the common carrier guidelines and do little more than provide the interconnect between networks. There should be strong Network Neutrality guidelines for interconnection at the backbone level. Otherwise, my backbone provider can decide to block traffic and then it is out of my control. Of course they can charge more, and for these kind of connections we are ALREADY paying a substantial premium, but unfettered "common carrier" connections need to be available. The one thing that could really make a big difference in this whole equation is the existence and growth of other players beyond the telephone companies and major backbone carriers. If the telcos and cablecos continue with their apparent plan to make their networks into giant walled "silos" of their own content - there will be a substantial demand for open networks. WISPS are in a good position to take advantage of their manipulations.

Matt Larsen

Tom DeReggi wrote:

I have not visited the site yet, and at your recommendation, I will explore their content, to see if it is something that I would support or not.

However, if only 6 ISPs have signed, that could be a sign, that it may not support our needs.

I believe in Freedom of Speech, but I also believe its the responsibilty of the speaker to bare the cost and responsibilty of their speech. Its not the ISPs responsibilty to buy the microphone.

Net Neutrality, is a tough subject, to even fully understand what a group is supporting.

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

I agree, but... The problem is the interpretation of what the definition of the "Internet" is. I have no problem with the above comment, if meaning is conections between providers. The problem is that most people Interperate "Internet" being the connection all the way to the consumer. I feel that legislation may prevent ISPs from blocking access from their consumers. The only alternative is prioritizing or slowing down traffic accross the network between providers. Its hard to know if the second should not be supported, if we don;t know if we'll loose control of our last mile.

If wireless Providers can't control the flow of data on their network to consumers, it will destroy their networks. And If WISPS are allowed to block and Large carriers are not, consumers are likely to pick big carriers over WISPs. Its a scary situation, when you know one TV broadcast can monopolize the throughput of a WISPs connection to its clients in many cases.

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

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

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,

Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next public WISP Workshop is June 21 and 22 in Atlanta, Georgia
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220

WISPA Wireless List:



WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to