I think that's an excellent idea! At least for the wireless side of things where we have to run things tight.
We are a bit of a different animal from Comcast and Time Warner. Hell, some of us use them as the upstream provider! -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:31 PM To: WISPA General List 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/
