I think David is right on. I remember the peering wars in 95' and they
didn't last long because people would not put up with it then, and
internet to the private businesses/individuals was fairly new then. The
priority wars will go the same way. If Qwest doesn't give you a
reasonable speed to google, then I bet comcast will and customers will
buys the service that fits their needs.
The pro net neutrality people suggest that 'premium' bandwidth will come
at a premium price, but there is nothing stopping the cableops and LECs
from raising their prices today or lowering their SLAs... Nothing except
the competition that is, and I don't see that going away any time soon.
As long as there is a demand there will be competition to provide that
service at a competitive price, atleast up until the time the government
gets involved with taxes, regulations and subsidies. I don't think I
want the FCC regulating the SLA with my customers.
If you cannot control the traffic on your network to benefit the
majority of your users you are going to see your quality users leaving
for greener pastures.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
David Sovereen wrote:
I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less
regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how
they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation opens the
door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and
equal access to all content on the Internet.
How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from
other traffic? I'll bite... I am.
How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate
from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I only prioritize VoIP
traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from
Vonage or anyone else.
How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other
traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am again.
Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you see
my point.
These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure a
quality of service my customers expect.
Net neutrality takes these controls away.
Dave
989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www.mercury.net <http://www.mercury.net>
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Larry Yunker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; WISPA General
List <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands for the
interests of
Verizon, AT&T Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell Carriers
(many of
which incidentally are owned by AT&T, Bell South, and Verizon
RBOCs). With
statements like this, I don't believe that the WCA will ever be
looking out
for the interests unlicensed WISPs.
If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to
"controlling your
own network", you have missed the entire point. Without effective
net
neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos will own the
internet and
tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows through it. It will
be one
more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't
afford to pay
tariffs to get their subscribers access to "premium" content. It
will drive
the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and
CableCos because
those networks will be the only "fast" networks or the only ones
that have
"access" to everything on the internet.
- Larry Yunker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
> WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
>
> http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html
>
<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450>
>
> The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA)
has come
> down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the
pressure
> groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress
> </search/?query=Congress>* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb
news
> break, /June 15).
>
> Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and
> manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed
> *NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, president of
> *Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an "e-forum" for
debate but
> clearly positions itself among the vocal anti-net-neutrality
factions.WCA
> claims its motive is to promote growth and innovation in advanced
> communications over broadband wireless by protecting the
business from
> net-neutrality regulation
>
> "With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it is imperative
that
> wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own
networks,"
> said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement.
"Net-neutrality
> regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more
competitive
> broadband choices to all Americans. Our member companies are
investing
> heavily in WiMAX </search/?query=WiMAX> or other '4G' types of
> next-generation broadband competitive alternatives. Our
companies are part
> of the competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem."
>
> Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable
> Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National
Cable &
> Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States
Telecommunications
> Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*, *AT&T*,
> *BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest </search/?query=Qwest>
> Communications International*, *Sprint*, *Time Warner Cable*,
*Verizon
> </search/?query=Verizon> Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*.
>
> With the WCA's membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation
wireless
> broadband companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would
> discourage investment, adding, "More innovation and competition
are the
> antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking
government
> micromanagement."
>
> The development comes after key *House* committees and a full
House floor
> vote passed a new video-franchise and telecom bills after defeating
> repeated amendment attempts to codify stronger net-neutrality
laws and to
> give the *Federal Communications Commission* greater powers.
>
> The debate over net neutrality - with many pro and con pressure
groups
> frantically trying to get attention - now turns to the *Senate
*Committee
> on Commerce Science and Technology, where a massive
communications-reform
> bill also allegedly lacks strong net-neutrality provisos as well
as to the
> Senate Judiciary Committee that is considering separate net
neutrality
> bills in an antitrust, anti-monopoly context (/see related
stories in
> today's Telecom Policy Report/).
>
> The Senate Commerce Committee may mark up its draft on Thursday
(reschuled
> from tomorrow) while Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on Antitrust,
> Competition Policy and Consumer Rights that same afternoon has
slated a
> hearing on the impact of the proposed AT&T/BellSouth merger (in
light of
> consolidating telcos becoming a factor in the net-neutrality fight).
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
> RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
> We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate
> 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm
>
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
!DSPAM:16,44985ce9229999119242804!
--
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
