Err, I don't think this summary is accurate. The focus is on net neutrality for applications, regardless of protocol. Considering how often the FCC has referenced VOIP, including Skype (which does use P2P technology), in these discussions, on and off the record, the FCC isn't looking just to make sure that both CNN and Fox News get speedy delivery times. They are looking to make sure that over the top services of all sorts are viable and aren't blocked by the service provider for competitive reasons.
This really shouldn't be a problem for service providers. For the past several years, the FCC has been publicizing the standpoint that they are not going to allow discrimination on an application. They have never said that you can't shape on a _per user_ basis. If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over HTTP. If that isn't the case, then stop buying Linksys routers at WalMart and step up to real gear. Set bandwidth caps. Block your heaviest users. Bit Torrent isn't your enemy and doesn't cost you any more money than HTTP. Heavy users cost you money, regardless as to whether they are using bit torrent, hulu, usenet, or whatever. -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand <cmaur...@xyonet.com> wrote: > > 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/
