Matt,

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 truth.

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 network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc

-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to