|
Dave,
I can see your points and I agree that
OVER-regulation could lead to the sort of harms that you list.
Unfortunately, the alternative of NO-regulation would enable backbone
providers of the internet to weed out the smaller providers by
deprioritizing traffic, blocking ports, charging tolls, etc. I think that
the correct course would be a MIDDLE GROUND of regulation which would
differentiate between backbone neutrality and last-mile neutrality.
Since the success of the internet has long
been based on the premise of non-discriminatory peered-backbone access, I
think the goal should be to prohibit backbone providers from discriminating
based on type-of traffic, source-of traffic, or destination-of traffic.
This means that in an ideal scenario, the
government would prevent the likes of L3/AT&T/Verizon from even looking at
the type of traffic that is flowing through the backbone. They don't need
to know what the traffic is. Rather, their business is to get that
traffic from point A to point B and make sure that there is switching/routing
capacity. They should not be positioned to decide WHO gets to
have the best routes or WHO gets to have the fastest response time. If
this is allowed, the only providers left standing in 2010 will be the backbone
providers themselves (anyone that has EVER dealt with a RBOC as a competitor
should be able to attest to the fact that RBOCs sell their own services to
themselves MUCH cheaper than they sell those services to their
competitors).
I realize that taking this stance against
"Tiered-Access Internet" forecloses on all of the promised INNOVATIONS that will
lead to true end-to-end QoS on the public internet. Yet,
I'd rather have today's internet with non-discriminatory routing rather
than "tomorrow's internet" monopolized by
Ma-Bell.
Please note: I think that last-mile providers
ought to be free to offer whatever limited/prioritized/deprioritized traffic TO
THEIR OWN SUBSCRIBERS as they deem necessary. If you want to
block your own subscribers from getting P-to-P traffic, running servers, or
downloading movies that should be your prerogative. Perhaps
you should be required to disclose this "limited-access" internet service
to your subscribers, but you should be free to set up your own policies
regarding the traffic that flows to/from YOUR OWN CLIENTS. I see no
reason that the government needs to regulate this sort of activity beyond
requiring ISPs to divulge content filtering/blocking policies. I figure it
this way: if you are a last-mile internet provider and you are blocking content
to/from your clients, the clients usually have to opportunity to switch to
another provider. IF you are the only provider of service in the area,
then one could argue that free market economics will drive new competitors
to enter if/when there are enough unsatisfied customers.
The core policy reason to regulate backbone
providers is to ensure that internet traffic can continue to freely travel the
globe without unnecessary limitations. This same policy reason does not
apply to last-mile providers because end-users/consumers/content-providers can
all CHOOSE their last-mile provider whereas we cannot choose the path that our
packets take when crossing the backbone of the internet! The real question
is whether we can get legislators to understand this CRUCIAL
difference.
- Larry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:37
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.
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
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640
----- Original Message -----
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]>
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
>
<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
>
>
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/
--
WISPA Wireless List:
wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives:
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
|
