> If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need to
> practice content management.
Agreed. "should" not need.
> 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.
Disagree. Things dont always work as they "should", and the dominant players
control the negoatiation. Thre are some services that historically are expected
to be offered by an Access provider, and access providers need the option to
offer them reliably without copetitive sabatage or threat. The most common
example is... No, a goliath ISP should not be allowed to say....
"I dont want to receive or send mail to small ISP, so we are going to block
it". Nor should they be able to say "no, we aren't going to accept DNS queries
from the small ISP", unless in violation of AUP prior to it being solved.
"content" needs to be defined, differently than "services" that all ISP must be
able to offer and exchange communication with all other ISP..
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Unger
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
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/
