Responses inline...

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
You guys that post using this incredibly annoying bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c onversational email impossible... Read on below. comments are prefaced with >>>>> North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

    ----- Original Message -----
    *From:* David Sovereen <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
    *To:* WISPA General List <>
    *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM
    *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

    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.
>>>> I don't see the problem with content companies and
    subscribers having equal access to each other.   That, after
    all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!

Not according to what you reply below. Limiting P2P and prioritizing VOIP is not 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.
>>>> Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since
    peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically
    don't generally allow.   Terms of Service has covered hosting
    forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream.

So you only limit the upload on your peer to peer traffic?

In my opinion it has everything to do with net neutrality. If VZ can't deprioritize VOIP to outside servers you why would you be able to deprioritize peer to peer traffic. Who is to say that P2P traffic is less important than VOIP?

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.
>>>>> I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to
    whose servers it goes to...after all,  if I can't serve my
    customer's needs, then what the heck am I?   A fraud?

Again, you are not providing equal access to the internet, you are saying that someone's VOIP traffic has a higher priority then my web traffic which in turn has a higher priority than someone else's P2P traffic. This seems pretty arbitrary to me. What if I as a provider feel that web and email are top priority over VOIP and P2P? After all I am in the business of providing internet service not voice. What if I prioritize my VOIP traffic only since it only has to make it to my NOC before it switches to POTs whereas vonage is eating my general IP bandwidth? Am I allowed to charge clients extra for dedicated VOIP prioritization?

How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other
    traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am again.
>>>>> Yeah. Me too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do
    with limiting access to content.

Yes it does, you are blocking netbios and RPC, what makes them any different then VOIP or P2P or streaming video?

Another question, am I allowed to maintain a blacklist and block at my edge router? What if time warner makes it on my blacklist or vonage for some reason, can I now be fined by the FCC for not providing equal access? What about outgoing or incoming email? Do I have to allow it all?

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. >>>> I seriously doubt that.
Why? If the FCC can say you are not allowed to prioritize one service over another how can you have control of the traffic and utilization on your network?

Dave 989-837-3790 x 151
    989-837-3780 fax
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640

        ----- Original Message -----
        *From:* Larry Yunker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; WISPA General
        List <>
        *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" <
        Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PM
        Subject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

        > WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
        > 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
        > ** 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
        > 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
        > said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement.
        > regulation would discourage innovation and investment in
        more competitive
        > 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
        > Other supporters of include the *American
        > Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National
        Cable &
        > Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States
        > Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*,
        > *BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *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
        > 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
        > 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
        > 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 (reschuled
        > from tomorrow)  while Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on
        > 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
        > --
        > Regards,
        > Peter
        > RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
        > We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate
        > 813.963.5884
        > --
        > WISPA Wireless List:
        > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
        > Archives:

-- WISPA Wireless List:



-- WISPA Wireless List:




  Sam Tetherow
  Sandhills Wireless

WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to