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 <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
*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
[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: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 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" <wireless@wispa.org
<mailto: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
>
<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: 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>
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/
!DSPAM:16,44989ef3138967450237654!
--
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
