I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the
remarks made by Mr. Genachowski:
"Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination
The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that
broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet
content or applications.
This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their
networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over
others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an
Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered
by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to
decide what content and applications succeed.
This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably
managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for
example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy
users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not
constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet
experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be
curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing,
open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and
applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of
copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The
enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network
openness can and must co-exist.
I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment
of broadband providers offering managed services in limited
circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband
Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a
different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must
not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure
that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In
the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully
consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that
maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and
thriving Internet."
The sixth rule just says that if you're going to throttle things like
peer to peer, you're going to have to notify your users before you do it.
Reads just I thought it would. It doesn't prevent you from throttling
bittorrent uploaders, etc. Everyone should read the speech. Its not as
bad as the media makes it out to be.
--Curtis
Mike Hammett wrote:
> 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" <wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net>
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:04 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> 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" <d...@mvn.net>
>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
>> 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: 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/
>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
