Worldwide, the US ISPs don't have that much power. See Comcast tell DT, PCCW, NTT, etc. to fly a kite and Comcast will be the odd man out.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom DeReggi" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:04 PM To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is.... > > http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html > > We need to realize and seperate two things... > > 1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an > idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard to > combat based on the "ideals", and we should recognize that the goal of an > open Internet is not specifically what we are fighting. > 2) The reality that idealistic views dont translate to how the Internet > Industry really works. And the site's proposed methodology to attempt > preservation of an open network, infact may be harmful to consumers and > delivery of most common Internet services from competitive Access > providers. > What we need to fight are mechanisms and ideas that harm access providers, > or that prioritize content provider's needs over that of access providers. > > There is an important thing to realize. One of NetNeutrality's biggest > advocates is now I think Chief of Staff. (Bruce somebody). NetNeutrality > will be directly addressed in the new FCC, we can count on that. More so > than in past commissions. > > Over the next 3 months I believe WISPA will need to get actively engaged > in > Netneutrality lobbying. It will need to be a combined effort between > legislative and FCC committees. > The Legislative committee will need to fight bills being plannedd to be > introducted to congress, and FCC committee will need to fight for WISP > rights in soon to come FCC rulemaking. > It is my belief that government policy makers are timming their efforts so > legislation and FCC rules will come to effect togeather, as legislation is > pointing to the FCC to make rules. > We can start to lobby legislators now, while bills are government working > groups. And possibly there could be public hearings, where we might be > able > to request participation in them? > For FCC, we most likely would need to wait for the Notice of PRoposed Rule > making. Allthough ideally, its technically possible to lobby for proposed > rules to never get to rule making stage. > (although I dont think its likely for that to occur). > > We are going to need to decide whether we want to fight the core concept > all > togeather, or fight for details and wording that make the idealisitic > views > realistic in a way not to harm ISP. > I believe we will likely have a better chance of winning our view, if we > all > togeather fight netneutrality in its entirely, jsut because we'd ahve > cable > TV and RBOCs endorsement in addition to our WISP view. But the risk there > is that we do not protect ourselve from predator practices of monopoly > like > providers, and we risk loosing altogeather, if consumers gain more support > than providers do. The risk is that protecting the majority of consumers > (cable and RBOC subscribers with 80%+ market share) has greater benefit > than > protecting the few vulnerable providers (less than 20% market share by > small > ISPs and WISPs). > > We need to remind the government that the "open Internet" originally was a > network paid for by the government. In Today's Internet, providers are > required to pay for building access for consumers Internet access. Its a > beautiful thing to have a consolidated Internet deliverd by teh > combination > efforts of all providers. What we want to prevent is segregation of the > Internet, where providers are forced to make two networks, their "Internet > network", and then their "private network", where they would invest more > heavily in their own private networks for ROI reasons, and because policy > took away the viabilty of fair ROI for them. > > Let me pose a hypothetical situation... What would occur if Comcast, > Timewarner, and RBOCs announced tommorrow, that they would no longer offer > Internet Access as of Dec 2010, and planned to cancel all peers to the > Internet, but would create a peer between each other, and announced their > hosting solutions (for a price) which allowed some content provider the > option to access their private networks. Would they legally be allowed not > to offer Internet access, and go 100% private? And if it were legal, would > they keep their market share, considering togeather they owned 90% of the > eyeballs and last mile connections to consumer's homes, many of which were > the single only source of connection? I'd argue they'd keep 99% of their > customer base, and instead users that had choice of provider would > subscribe > to two services, the Public Internet provider, and the Private network > provider, because there would be benefit to buying access to both. Either > that, or private network providers would create a "gateway to teh Internet > service" that was an add-on to their existing privat network service. > Those > that wanted access to the Internet would pay additional for the gateway > service, and eventually the gateway Internet service would perform so much > worse than to hosts on the private direct network, so most Hosts would > start > to migrate to hosting platforms on the private network. I believe it is > very > possible that "unbundling" could occur at some point to "increase" > consumer's costs. Bundling was a technique to win market share, unbundling > become a way to increase profits, once they own the market. My point here > is that small providers will all be better off with all on one Internet, > with terms that are acceptable to all parties, so they keep it that way. > > NetNeutrality is not only about Network Management. Its also about freedom > to be the type of provider we want to be. Policy makers should not favor > content providers to control what the Internet evolves to. And providers > should not be forced to do something beyond the core concepts of the > Internet. Policy to force Providers to become TV providers is just plain > wrong. And forcing strict Netnetrality laws will force providers to only > build networks that can handle consumer demand whcih will eventually > become > TV services, if we are forced to allow it. > > We need to seperate "Internet Access" from "Advanced Broadband", which in > my > mind are two totally different topics. > Rules that might be acceptable for "advanced wired broadband" may be > totally > wrong for core "Internet Access", and vice versa. Focing the two to be one > and the same, is wrong, because all providers and networks are not the > same. > > And by all means any NetNetrality rule passed should be a bi-directional > rule. If all access provider are forced to deliver all content, all > content > providers should be forced to interconnect with all access providers, if > requested. > > We could simply take the approach of.... "stop regulation, stay our of our > business", but if we can come up with good ideas, it may be more favorable > to state what rules we think could work. > But most importantly state what rules will not, and why. > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David E. Smith" <[email protected]> > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:30 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > >> Curtis Maurand wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> That may be what they mean, but that sure isn't what they're saying (or >> at least that's not what it sounds like from way up here in the peanut >> gallery). >> >> Can anyone comment on whether WISPA plans to adopt any official position >> on this? I'm not saying "net neutrality is bad," because I adore the >> principles. I just want to be sure the FCC doesn't pass some >> overly-broad rulemaking, slanted towards bigger operators, that makes it >> difficult or impossible for smaller outfits (like mine!) to keep things >> running smoothly. >> >> David Smith >> MVN.net >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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/
