I'm pretty safe with my opinion. Get the hell out of my business, government.
BTW: Hulu is owned by ABC, NBC, Fox, and the tech company that came up with it. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -------------------------------------------------- From: "Curtis Maurand" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:23 PM To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > 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/
