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
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
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?
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.
WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org