Peter R. wrote:

Rick Smith wrote:

I still don't see why anyone should be able to use my network without paying me for the right to do so. PERIOD. I don't run a network for the benefit of the free world, I run it for the benefit of my checkbook. Which needs SERIOUS help. :) OK, and while we're at it, why is "net neutral" good ? I admit I've ignored most of the discussions on it due to the fact that I'm NOT a supporter.


We are at this point in telecom for exactly these reasons:
1) Many do not even understand the issue, but take a side in it
2) Everyone was saying regulate them, but not us
3) It's my network I can do what I want with it

Net Neutrality means that I buy an open, unfiltered pipe to the INTERNET.
The best argument I have heard is that if you are offering a restricted pipe, then say so, because you are not offering the INTERNET. (Remember AOL used to have its community and you would open a portal to the WWW).

That doesn't mean you can't prevent a degradation on your network, but that doesn't mean you get to give one content or app provider priority over another.

I think this is where much of the disagreement, atleast in the ISP community, is coming from. What is preventing degradation (or QoS on sensitive traffic), vs offering a restricted pipe.

I doubt there are many of us that think offering better service to yahoo over google is a good business practice, and despite much of the campaigning, I doubt this is a realistic scenario. The people that take this approach are going to find themselves on the outs in markets where they have competition, and it places where they don't they might just find new competition. I can't imagine google and yahoo paying the price. The tactic will only work effectively if someone pays and someone else doesn't otherwise they will all suck equally.

My concern is that if legislation is passed to say we can't prioritize one provider over another (yahoo over google) then it isn't much of a slope to where we won't be able to perform QoS on a network.

For instance, if it is easy to identify VOIP traffic to the major players (Vonage, Packet8, etc.) but not easy to identify an obscure player who uses different ports then wouldn't we be in violation of the legislation since we do offer better service to only the major players? What about competing services with different implementations such as bittorrent vs ftp for legal file distribution. If I prioritize bittorrent under ftp for degredation reasons am I not in effect offering a restricted pipe to anyone that uses bittorrent to distrubute their files?

   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless


The problem becomes when the customer only has one BB choice and that provider restricts his usage.

And about FON... how is that any different that the nimrod consumers who leave their Linksys AP wide open??



This is just me rambling this morning.

- Peter




--
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