I would like to applaud everyone and add my $.02. This has been extremely professional, though everyone has their own opinions. Thanks.
I have been not blocking, but limiting P2P so that it doesn't take up all resources as someone put. There are still some people that find ways around it. I don't limit because I feel they are getting something they shouldn't or even because I think it is illegal, I do it because I don't want others' experiences to be slow or bad because of these network applications. If there is one, I can limit the CPE to not exceed, therefore not taking air-time. If I have several, it is much harder and more has to be done at the AP to fairly distribute that load. It is not so much the bandwidth I limit, it is the air time that is valuable to me. The more they use, the less others can. With the hope of newer technologies like N, WiMax, and LTE, this airtime is dealt with better and is less of a threat. The bandwidth hogs will go away when the entire industry transitions to a metered system. I don't think it is too far behind with Netflix, Hulu, YouTube HD, etc. Now that is the most fairest way to deal with customers/bandwidth hogs. I see it as selling a connections for $X and charging by the Gig. That way all models work, as long as we can still prioritize the air-waves, not so much the bandwidth. That is how almost all utilities work. Eric -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Vogel Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Jack, I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much addressing you as being the one conflating the two issues. I think you have a good understanding of the two issues, and are reasonable in how you are addressing them. I am somewhat concerned that free speech was at the forefront of your endorsement of the FCC's upcoming proposal re Net Neutrality. As I said before, I don't think free speech is really the issue, either from the standpoint of the ISPs, nor of those who have been arguing for Net Neutrality, although some argue for NN primarily on the basis of free speech, which is where I think the issues have been conflated. The most visible cases I can recall that caught the attention of the News Media as well as the FCC were trade issues, rather than free speech issues. A phone company disallowing VoIP on their data networks, Cable companies disallowing IPTV on from possibly competing TV companies, etc. are trade issues. P2P is harder to portray as a trade issue. (Are there any ISPs who would block P2P to protect their own music business?) But.. P2P is still not really a free speech issue, although it is sometimes presented as such. The FCC proposes to regulate ISPs to ensure that they do not inhibit/impair the "*free flow of information AND CERTAIN APPLICATIONS" (quoted from the AP story, emphasis mine). We do have constitutional guarantees regarding free speech, and the Federal government is charged with regulating Interstate commerce, but there is no constitutional right to pass IP packets in any amount, frequency, volume, or direction you may choose, over anybody's IP network which you may choose. Advocating that you do under the free speech clause is inappropriate IMNSHO. :) As far as my network goes, and I suspect that most ISP's would be similar, I don't care if you use FTP, HTTP, TELNET, SSH, or Real Audio 40kps stream to receive the speech populary known as "I have a dream" by Martin Luther King. I might have an issue if you decide to download the HDTV version, and then do likewise for every political speech made since then. But... that has nothing to do with free speech. But, if the FCC decides that I must allow you to stream the HDTV video file, and that I cannot as an ISP interfere with that stream in a manner that makes it uncomfortable for you to view (constant buffering) under the guise of free speech guarantees, I have a big problem with that. I also have a problem with a certain application that is designed to consume every available network resource in an effort to gain an advantage over other users of the network in file download times. Again, not speech related, but often portrayed as a free speech issue. Jack, I know you know the difference, and this isn't really directed at you. But you were the one who brought the free speech issue into it AFAICT. John * Jack Unger wrote: > Hi John, > > Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have > conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue > of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. > > On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing > bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they > contract for and not any more than what they contract for. > > On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the > "decider" and choose what content they will pass and what content they > won't pass. > > If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need > to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or > you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or > receive it from. > > I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? > > Respectfully, > > jack > > > John Vogel wrote: >> Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who >> would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If >> it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, >> moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high >> bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as >> most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their >> networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done >> so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type >> of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been >> transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of >> connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) >> >> Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I >> reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to >> converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything >> they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, >> (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, >> and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are >> communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech, >> arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke >> signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free >> speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate >> is somewhat disingenuous. >> >> There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them >> under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately. >> >> John >> >> Jack Unger wrote: >> >>> The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any >>> Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to >>> say. >>> >>> The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as >>> most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just >>> one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to >>> another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and >>> shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you >>> going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL >>> ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. >>> >>> Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I >>> don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free >>> Speech when AT&T doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet >>> service off. If AT&T wants to take your Free Speech away then you are >>> saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my >>> freedom then have you telling AT&T what to do. STOP protecting my Free >>> Speech right now!!!". >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike Hammett wrote: >>> >>> >>>> What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Jack Unger >>>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >>>> >>>> >>>> Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. >>>> >>>> Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". >>>> >>>> If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? >>>> >>>> >>>> Josh Luthman wrote: >>>> Who's definition of unreasonable... >>>> >>>> On 9/19/09, Jack Unger <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. >>>> Reasonable network management policies are allowed. >>>> >>>> Robert West wrote: >>>> Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the >>>> price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I >>>> explained how it's net neutral. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>>> Behalf Of Blair Davis >>>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It's back.... >>>> >>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- >>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >>>> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" >>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 >>>> www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- >>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- >> 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/ >> >> >> > > -- > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 > www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 [email protected] > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- > 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/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
