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
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:wireless@wispa.org>
    *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
    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" <wireless@wispa.org
    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
    > The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA)
    has come
    > down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the
    > groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress
    > </search/?query=Congress>* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb
    > 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
    > 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
    > wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own
    > said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement.
    > regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more
    > broadband choices to all Americans. Our member companies are
    > 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
    > Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*, *AT&T*,
    > *BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest </search/?query=Qwest>
    > Communications International*, *Sprint*, *Time Warner Cable*,
    > </search/?query=Verizon> Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*.
    > With the WCA's membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation
    > 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
    > 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
    > frantically trying to get attention - now turns to the *Senate
    > on Commerce Science and Technology, where a massive
    > bill also allegedly lacks strong net-neutrality provisos as well
    as to the
    > Senate Judiciary Committee that is considering separate net
    > 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
    > 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: wireless@wispa.org <mailto: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 <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>


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


  Sam Tetherow
  Sandhills Wireless

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

Reply via email to