Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of
acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts.
What makes you come to that conclusion?
Well... you can't make Net Neutrality Laws without considering how ISPs
would be capable of technically delivering on those laws, without self harm.
I have not read anything from legislators that includes data on technical
aspects of delivery. The problems is that Fiber has different capabilties
than Wireless, and I jsut don;t see how someone can make a law that deal
with delviery of data, when technologies used for delivery are so widely
different in capacity. Ex. One fiber loop, can deliver 80GB. Jsut needs a
hardware change, which price may drop in cost with market forces and
legislation encouraging higher speeds and volume of deployment. Wireless on
the other hand has a fixed capacity, in practicality today. In many cases
peaked at 30mbps, and often peaked at as low a 4 mbps. How can legislation
address both technologies with out special provisions injected to cater to
each? The absense of adresssing dissimilar technology in Legislation infers
that those writing legislation do not undrstand the issues at hand
jsutifying it to be addressed. In truth, I have no prove that draws me to
my conclusion. It just sounds likely to me. This industry takes a lot of
predicting and forecasting, its not all black and white for us to know the
So, where is your argument against
my earlier email?
Actualy my response really isn't a targeted arguement to your original post.
Reading your post, however did spark thought from me on Net Neutrality, that
I find a interesting complex issue. Consider my response, my daily rambling.
I disagree it is a flawed model. We have customers that buy VoIP from us
and others that buy VoIP from companies like Vonage. Our VoIP is much
higher quality, but for customers that buy Vonage they accept the service
for what it is. We don't lower the priority of Vonage traffic; we don't
have to. Our VoIP service will always better if for no other reason than
it doesn't rely on internet transit. Core internet routers are designed to
move as much traffic as fast as possible. Sometimes this means queing of
traffic to obtain maximum throughput, while at the same time raising
latency. That is a good thing for core routers, but a bad thing for
real-time traffic like VoIP.
The difference here is that you currently appear to offer adequate QOS on
your network design to offer a better Quality service. Many WISPs do NOT.
Because they went after a different market that did not require it. And
many of them will likely not beable to upgrade their networks adequately to
cater to requirements to deliver Net Neutrality as some legislation suggests
the problem get solved. Which could result in large loss of clients and
failure of businesses. I'm not necessarilly against Net Neutrality. I just
need to know that certain special interests such as Wireless and small
providers are looked out for and not just bundled in with the profiles of
the large carriers, Ilecs, cable co, and National CLECS.
The other thing is that I believe it is foolish to think that you will
always deliver better QOS. Maybe you do today, I don;t challenge that. But
the jsut because the Vonages of the world are cheap, does not necessarilly
make them a less reliable provider. The Vonages of the world are the
largest threats to third party VOIP providers, jsut lije giant Cable
companies are threats to Independant ISPs, and Microsoft is to Operating
system developers. Vonage has scaled huge, and that gives them an economy
of scale to be capable of delivering better value. They also have more money
to hire better people to design better systems, etc. It doesn't mean they
have done it today, but the possibilty is there.
But I agree with your point, in most cases, there should be no reason to
specifically lower the priority of Vonages traffic, ethically. But a network
very well might need to limit all VOIP in general to maintain QOS for data.
The difference is cherry picking out specific businesses to block or harm.
That is what Net Neutrality must protect from. But a Network Provider must
be able to deterine what type of traffic can travel accross its network, and
at what speed and priority, its required for network management.
So let me go as far as saying, maybe it is wrong for a provider to
prioritize delivery of its product over another providers, after further
thought. An ISP can jsutify the higher QOS of its self provided VOIP
services, based on number of hops to VOIP gateway. If my VOIP gateway
rtesides on my network, with a engineered path, I know its likely going to
perform better than someone using a VOIP service that travels the INternet
to the VOIP gateway without the abilty to deliver QOS. MAybe this will turn
into a situation like Google cache appliances, or edge Web caching
appliances, where the VOIP providers pay you to host their VOIP gateways to
get shortest path the Subscriber/VOIP Phone user?
But what needs to be made inevidably clear in any Net Neutrality
legislation, is that a Network Provider must never be prevented from taking
actions that will allow them to fix or deliver the QOS or EXPERIENCE to its
customers, that they are contractually obligated to deliver to its
subscribers, not necessarilly speed, capacity or commited rates. Network
providers can not fear LEGAL RECOURCE every time they go to manage their
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org
WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com