there must be some of that going on already isn't there? On my networks, I never really throttled anything.
--C Mike wrote: > Would we REALLY want the gov micromanaging our networks THAT close? > > > At 02:26 PM 9/21/2009, you wrote: > >> Just needed to be worded based on service or type of traffic not >> destination. >> >> All TOS byte 184 traffic priority 1 >> >> All DNS priority 2 >> >> All HTTP priority 4 >> >> etc... >> >> WE DO NOT want >> >> cnn.com, twcbc.com, abc.com priority 1 >> >> google.com yahoo.com priority 2 >> >> whitehouse.com superhotstuffhere.com priority 8 >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however >> improbable, must be the truth." >> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be >>> modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit >>> outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block >>> illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent >>> (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU >>> licensed open source)? There lies the big question. >>> >>> I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN >>> (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I >>> still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. >>> IMHO >>> >>> --Curtis >>> >>> >>> Jerry Richardson wrote: >>> >>>> I can't agree more. >>>> >>>> "Blocking" (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no >>>> >>> longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it >>> all. >>> >>>> Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP >>>> >>> is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that >>> fight in court every time. >>> >>>> We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay >>>> >>> less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered >>> growth. >>> >>>> I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to >>>> >>> determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service >>> tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less >>> and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive >>> and be fair. >>> >>>> Jerry Richardson >>>> airCloud Communications. >>>> >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>>> >>> Behalf Of Jack Unger >>> >>>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >>>> >>>> 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 <[email protected]><mailto:[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]> >>>> >>> [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]<mailto:[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<http://www.ask-wi.com> 818-227-4220 [email protected] >>>> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>> >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<http://www.ask-wi.com> 818-227-4220 [email protected] >>>> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>> >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<http://www.ask-wi.com> 818-227-4220 [email protected] >>>> >>> <mailto:[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/ >> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/
