Hi John,
I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the
ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or
unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers
and 2) the financial well-being of the ISP.
Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and
2) Content.
Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the
Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to
deliver more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer
contracted for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only
contracted for 256 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if
the HDTV movie doesn't stream smoothly.
Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant.
There area two (or perhaps more) sides of "free speech".
1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the
side that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is
vital. When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right
to keep Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that
oppose the Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them
to have the right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss
ideas that oppose the Republicans. When either Democrats or Republicans
are in power, I don't want either of them to have the right to keep
independent voices from organizing or using the Internet to discuss
independent ideas. This is what I mean by protecting and preserving the
right to "free speech".
2. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE - Currently, we live in a commercialized
(possibly an over-commercialized) world. When many journalists write
about Network Neutrality they could care less about protecting the
political side of "free speech". All they focus on is the commercial
side of Content - for example <"Service and Content Provider A" is
blocking the services of "Content Provider B">. To me, this is a
"Restraint of Trade" issue rather than a political "Free Speech" issue
but it still falls under the heading of "Content" and is therefore
addressed by NN.
Should NN address the commercial side of "Content"?? Yes, I think it's
appropriate that it does. Should one Content and Service provider be
allowed to prohibit or unfairly delay the services of another Content
provider who is using their network?? No, I don't think so. Every
service provider should be required to carry the content of every other
content or service provider equally, without restriction AS LONG AS THE
CONTRACTED BANDWIDTH LIMITS ARE NOT EXCEEDED. If I contract for 256k of
bandwidth do I have a right to ask my ISP to stream HDTV movies to me
without delay? No, I do NOT because I am asking to consume more
bandwidth then I have contracted to pay for and the ISP must slow my
stream down to be able to manage their total bandwidth so they can
deliver the contracted amount of bandwidth to all their customers. This
is "reasonable network management" and it's perfectly proper.
Sorry for the long-winded explanation but I felt that it was necessary
to distinguish between the political "Free Speech" Content issue and
the "Commercial" Content issue.
Because I don't claim to be an expert on Net Neutrality, I'm open to
hearing constructive and thoughtful comments from others who can help
me further refine my current opinions.
Again, thanks for your post.
jack
John Vogel wrote:
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 <jun...@ask-wi.com> 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: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 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: wireless@wispa.org
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 jun...@ask-wi.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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/
--
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 jun...@ask-wi.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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/
--
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 jun...@ask-wi.com
|
