Panel 3 might get to the point quicker.
It's titled:
"Discrimination, Blockage, and Vertical Integration"
George Rogato wrote:
http://ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/index.html
If anyone is really interested in what the big boys have to say and how
each side looks at things.
I watched this last weekend, was interesting.
George
John Scrivner wrote:
Mark your calendars folks, me and Mark K are in agreement for once.
Those who support Net Neutrality without exception have never had to
track, isolate and repair infected PCs spewing out spam or replicative
exploits to the masses. We "should" have a right to decide what we
allow on our networks and to implement controls ourselves if needed in
order to make sure our networks function optimally. Regulators forcing
us to offer an open road to all data traffic is not a good thing for a
provider of broadband networking services who is also trying to offer
a good value for the money and manage network resources for optimal
performance. But hey, if the world wants blind NN then so be it, give
us all $300 per month per connection in Universal Service fees and we
can offer a "no limits" connection to every person who connects. Let
all the bits roll huh?
I have previously tried to push for a re-definition of the issue.
Forcing "Net Neutrality" is something almost nobody can benefit from
in all instances. I believe a better approach is for the broadband
industry to agree to a "First do no harm" mission statement. What this
would mean is that we all agree on our honor that we will not do
things to data traffic which limit competition, reduce legitimate
services to customers, remove open access to thoughts, ideas,
political voices, etc., or otherwise force people to pay more for
anything that should be easily accessible with minimal network loading
in an open access network connection.
In its most basic application the "First do no harm" mission could be
illustrated in this example involving VOIP:
If I offer VOIP to my customers as a service that I manage and sell
through my company and I want optimum quality of service for this then
I can prioritize my VOIP service packets to a higher level than
average traffic but I cannot set a competitor's VOIP packets to run at
a lower QoS level than average traffic nor can I block competitors
VOIP traffic. In short I should be able to optimize my network to
allow my services to run optimally or to sell the rights for others to
optimize their traffic to run at a higher priority but I cannot set
traffic patterns to harm another provider's packets to run at a lower
than average priority or to be blocked from passing at all.
Here is another example of "First do no harm"
If a customer PC is infected with a virus and is generating spam and
sending viruses to other PCs then we should be able to remove this
computer from network service or filter this traffic at our
discretion. This goes against Net Neutrality but fits easily into the
"First do no harm" mission.
I would be glad to debate why a "First do no harm" mission would be a
better direction than Net Neutrality for broadband policy directives.
This might be a good way to head off the Net Neutrality issue from
being used against us in regulatory issues. If broadband providers as
a whole would adopt a directive which would eliminate any Net
Neutrality concerns then it would be more difficult for those pushing
for Net Neutrality to argue their stance.
Scriv
wispa wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote
After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not
have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?)
Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who
doesn't advocate NN in any and every form is "owned by the telcos".
That's a complete disservice to the debate and to yourself.
He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM. Nobody
that I know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer
wants it done), or content. Some providers don't offer VOIP support.
I don't particularly, either, as my network isn't optimized by any
QOS implementation.
However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world
of DC, he thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way
to manage political speech. Free speech advocates are already quite
upset about the FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles
during election season to avoid compaign reform law entanglements.
In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow
routinely out of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust
in regulators to not encroach on our most fundamental freedoms.
If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become
non-neutral in regards to who and what people did... I don't think
the sky would fall. On the contrary, I could raise my rates and get
a whole new market.
As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast, Inc, have a
REAL "right" to every site, service, or use possible, that should
depend on the agreement I make with my customers, should it not?
I've been tempted to offer a "web only" service, appropriately
priced, that blocks EVERYTHING but http and dns.
Would that be legal under NN laws? If the answer is "No", then
perhaps we should rethink what we really want. I say that a lack of
neutrality by other providers is opportunity for me, not a negative.
And that as much as a subscription to your local newspaper doesn't
give you the right have every news story, columnist, and cartoon
delivered to your door, nor does subscribing to a tiered internet
service.
What do you think?
--------------------------------------------
Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc
Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains
541-969-8200
--
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
