Tom DeReggi wrote:
No offense taken. Its the opinions from all, that allows us to
reconsider a better balanced perspective.
I may have been a "bit over the top" on my previous statements, but
none the less, I do not agree with Comcast's position on this topic.
It doesn't sit right with me, and I don't think it will sit right with
the consumers.
Apparently, some others agree, or the News arcticle would not have
been written, and caught significant media attention in other
publications as well.
Only time watching the situation will determine whether most consumers
will
agree or disagree with that type of methods.
My opinion stems deep from one core principle....
Monopolies "exclusive franchises that subsidize their broadband
product" should not have the same rights as independant ISPs.
When someone is a Monopoly the arguement "Its my network, I have the
right to do what ever I want" doesn't really apply, as the Monopoly
network is also the primary sometimes only network to serve the
majority public in an area, and therefore the "people's" only network
in practicality. True competition does not yet exist for all
consumers. These exclusive franchise rights have been extended by the
county or state to the provider, and the Government works for the
people. Therefore the people should have some say in what practices
their monopoly provider practices. Comcast is a monopoly or as near it
as a company can possibly be. One company should not be able to make
the decision of what is and is not acceptable for consumers use on the
Public Internet. And I consider Comcast part of the "public Internet".
There is an obligation by these Broadband monopolies to live by
example, and deal with these topics in the absolute most ethical way.
Because if they can't do it, at their volume, no one can. I am not
convinced that Comcast has found the most ethical way to handle the
p2p issue. I do believe they are exploring to find it, and testing
the waters of what consumers feel is ethical, and everyone else will
learn from it.
The problem here is how do you define a monopoly, and can that
definition ever change? Was I the monopoly when I was the only guy in
town providing high speed? Did I lose that distinction when Qwest
finally started offering DSL?
Side note: Your arguement on comparing smtp tarpiting to p2p blocking
does have merit, but depending on how stringent it is configured.
What thresholds for max connections is acceptable to consider
something an attack versus a legitimate high volume communication? And
are the tarpiting rules treating different senders differently? What
if Comcast's tarpit was set to allow 1 Email an hour from ISPX, and
argue 2 messages an hour was abuse, would that be ethical at those
thresholds? If ATT did the same thing, and said it would allow up to
2 simultaneous connectiosn from Sprint customers but 50 connections
from a TimeWarner customer in an effort to drive custoemrs from
Sprint, would it be ethical? Should an end user not be allowed to do
ANY p2p, or what max number of sessions is an OK number?
As long as it is disclosed I don't think there is anything wrong with
it. I get charged more if I call someone on Sprint's cell network than
if I call someone on Alltel's network.
I am biased on these issues because I am daily competing against these
guys. I loose business to them on some occasions because they quote
their "6mbps unlimited access", winning over my "1mbps access". Yet,
my customers may be able to outperform Comcast with Voip or Keeping
their IPOD updated with songs (p2p), because of our more liberal
non-blocking policies. For me the big issue is disclosure, so
consumers can make decissions considering all factors. I don;t see
any of Comcast's sales literature exposing their methods? Sure there
are acceptable use policies, but do end users really understand what
they are reading? Do they have a choice if they don't like what they
read?
They always have a choice. Pretty much anyone can start a wireless ISP
and there are hundreds of people on this list that prove that point,
some of us have larger learning curves than others but I poll of
previous occupations would probably produce some interesting reading.
If their market won't bear the cost for an independent ISP to offer
service than the argument has been settled that the public is satisfied
with the price/performance that they are receiving.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
<SNIP>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
