------------
> >
> > Because you're not involved and you, as a content provider, have NO
interest
> > in my network.  My customer, however, DOES want his VOIP phone to work,
as
> > well as your pages to load.   Both can happen with QOS employed, no?
Your
> > web page loads no matter what.   His VOIP phone needs specific network
> > qualities to work right.
> >
> >
> I'm am not making that statement as a web hosting company, I am making
> the statement as one of your customers.  If I don't use VOIP, why should
> someone else's VOIP traffic be prioritized over my web traffic?

Explain.

> > My customers ASK me to protect them from malevolent attack.   They do,
> > however, want thier phone and video to work and work smoothly, at least
to
> > not have my network make them NOT work properly.
> >
> So all of your customers have come to you and said they want you to
> blocks ports x, y and z.  And what would you do if a customer requested
> those ports to be open on their network connection?

The ones that have any idea about network security do.

If a customer wanted wide open access without any port blocking, I guess I'd
just do it.

> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > Have you asked your customers if they want you to restrict thier access
to
> > TimeWarner's IP blocks?
> >
> Do you ask all of your customers if they mind you blacklisting an IP
> block that is continuously scanning your network?

If an IP block is disruptive to the network, I suppose I might.  I have yet
to block anything.

> >
> >>>     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?
> >>
> >
> > Because as far as I can tell, the whole debate has nothing to do with
any of
> > this, but about a third party being asked to pay to have a network's
> > customers be able to access thier services.
> >


> That is the arguments that are being bandied about by the pro net
> neutrality people.  But net neutrality is not limited to content
> provider access.  The FCC has already ruled once that an RBOC is not
> allowed to restrict access to VOIP services.  It seems like WISPs
> respond to this with a yeah, sticking it to the big guy.  But my thought
> is be careful what you wish for.  If the FCC says an ISP (in this case
> an RBOC) is required to allow a specific type of traffic on their
> network (VOIP service).  What is to stop them from doing the same for
> some other service with some other provider, say P2P traffic on your
> network?

Again, this strays into the "censor" vs "network operations".    A customer
reaching a competing VOIP service doesn't harm the network anymore than them
reaching my own.   But P2P running wide open tranferring many gigs a day
DOES harm the network.    Again, we're talking network operations vs
allowing hosting, and what's described in my contract as "abuse".

>
> Net neutrality is about giving regulatory control over your business to
> the FCC.

Again, I see you trying to blur some lines that need to be drawn, not
erased.

> > QOS is to make my customer's phone work.   Or his video work.   You, as
a
> > web provider, have no interest and no claims on this relationship.
Now,
> > along comes Verizon or Quest, and comes to YOU as web provider and says
"pay
> > up or we block our customer from your site", then I see a serious issue.
> >
> I'm not talking about VZ going to yahoo, that is campaigning spin used
> by the pro net neutrality side of the issue.  The heart of the issue in
> my opinion is VOIP traffic and soon streaming video.

In your opinion.    But I have yet to see this be an issue coming from the
mouths of the big operators.    They're just scanning the internet and
looking for a way to "tax" the successful content or services.

> > So IF there is any regulatory role in this... .  It has to do with
consumers
> > finding themselves being restricted from access unless they or a third
party
> > contracts to make it available.   Now, if ISP's are simply required to
> > inform thier customers of what they block or deprioritize, then I have
no
> > problem with them doing so.
> >
> If this was the case it would take care of itself.  Someone will come
> along and offer equal access to all web providers and the people will
> flock to them for their service because they don't have to worry about
> what web sites they visit and then pick and ISP based on that.

And that should be what we call "net neutrality", not sane network
operations.

> > If providers block things outside thier network and refuse allow it,
unless
> > a third and unrelated party pays up... then there's an issue.   So, if
my
> > customer wants prioritized VOIP and video and so on and I only provide
that
> > at an increase cost... big deal.
> >
> > If I tell him that all search engines and content providers that don't
pay
> > me are offlimits...  then there's a problem.   It all revolves around
this:
> > Is the connection I pay for..  owned by the ISP or the customer?   If I
sell
> > a customer a connection, he owns it.   Verizon says that the customer
> > doesn't, that they do, and they can control thier customer against his
> > wishes in a move to blackmail money from content providers.
> >
> > So, basically my point is that if we're going to argue about "net
> > neutrality', let's make sure that what we're talking about the same
thing.
> > Are we talking about an ISP's ability to service a customer as the
customer
> > wants, or are we talking about an ISP attempting to "censor" the net in
> > something remeniscent of blackmail?     The CEO's are not stirring up
the
> > advocacy folks by talking about implementing QOS to make VOIP and other
> > sensitive technologies work...  They're talking about demanding that the
> > content provider pay them for letting the customer reach them.
> >
> What we are talking about is giving the FCC regulatory control over the
> ISP business.

That has already been done.   Encouraged by WISPA, for instance, and now
it's illegal to run an ISP without federal registration.   It seems that
some people have been in a headlong rush, both in industry and government,
to regulate internet access.   The big players hope to sway that regulation
to benefit them, as well.

 As it stands right now they don't.  They have control
> over spectrum, they have control over RBOC/LECs but this would allow
> them to extend that control to the ISP realm.  I suppose if people
> believe the government is here to help them, they might look at this as
> a good thing.  I have the opposite view, the government I like best is
> the one I never hear from.

We agree on the notion that the governemnt I want, is the one I never hear
from... however, there ARE legitemate consumer protections that should be
debated.   And we, as the people who actually understand this business,
should take the defining role so that the proper debate is had and an
informed debate as well.    I see the arguments about VOIP, and QOS
implementation as a red herring, which steers us from debating and defining
what kind of "neutrality" or at least "informed consumers" should be
debated.

>
> The free market is much better suited to providing for the needs of the
> consumer than any government agency could be.
> > That's just like the taxi demanding the restaurants and theaters and so
on,
> > pay them for allowing the taxi's customers to get to them, and if they
> > won't, the taxi won't stop there.
> >
> > Or QWest charging $40 / mo for a phone line, $.25 a minute to call out
and
> > then demanding an additional $10 a month from everyone who wants quest's
> > customers to be able to reach them.     In this regard, there may be
> > legitmate consumer protections which probably should be publicly
considered.
> >
> Hmm, sounds like USF...

Not really.


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!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Reply via email to