Tom,
Your hypothetical about Comcast, etc... creating "private networks" is
unfounded and not likely to happen.  In the end, it misses the point that
the "Internet", from a consumer perspective, is NOT bandwidth and has very
little to do with the bits and bytes that you shuffle around your network.
The Internet IS the edge, it's the applications and users (since so much
content is peer-generated these days).

Want proof?  Block Google and Facebook for 1 day and see how many people
care that "your service" is working :).  Do it for a week and see how many
customers you retain.  Repeat for any of the other apps that your customers
use.  The balance of power, in terms of customer retention, is on the
application providers side, since, from a customer perspective, the apps are
Internet.

As I recall, the "private networks" were tried back in the 90s by AOL,
etc...  they had a user base of millions and lots of premium content (in
terms of dollar investment, the "best" content was on AOL, Compuserv,
Prodigy, etc... for a time).  It didn't matter, the users overwhelmingly
chose the open Internet.  Even the WISPA crowd has been more profitable than
the guys that chose to do "private" networks :)

Oh, and there's the small detail that every service provider in the nation
is running their network over public assets: whether it's on the poles, in
the ground, or running over wireless using licensed (leased) or unlicensed
spectrum (which isn't quite the same deal, I realize).  If they want to run
"private" networks, then they have to do it on land that they own or that
they compensate the government for appropriately--current pole attachment
rates and so forth are not applicable to companies that are wanting to build
out solely private networks.

-Clint Ricker







On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tom DeReggi <wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net>wrote:

> 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/

Reply via email to