Then don't run a business that is essential a utility.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mike Hammett <wispawirel...@ics-il.net>wrote: > 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" <cmaur...@xyonet.com> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:23 PM > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > 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: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 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 <jun...@ask-wi.com><mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> > >> 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: wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> > >> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 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: wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> jun...@ask-wi.com<mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> > >> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org<mailto: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<mailto:wireless@wispa.org> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> jun...@ask-wi.com<mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> > >> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org<mailto: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<mailto:wireless@wispa.org> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> jun...@ask-wi.com<mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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/
