Tom DeReggi wrote:

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.

Markets change and business that won't or can't adapt deserve to lose. We should not have regulation designed to protect business models that no longer make sense. For example, I don't think we should help the airlines out when they run out of money. If some airlines can operate profitably then there is no reason to help out ones that can't.

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.

Vonage might be bigger, have better people, and more cash, but their service will never be higher quality that ours because we own the network. Vonage's service might be good enough (I don't think it is), but it will never be better until they have end-to-end control.

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?

VoIP gateways closer to the customer is certainly one way to address the problem. I would expect the Akamais of the world to be looking into this.

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.

Certainly the government can force you to modify the contracts you have with your customers. See the 911 problems all the VoIP providers are having.

WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to