We do not allow the running of servers in our TOS, so I guess we are safe with torrents?
Scottie ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Robert West" <[email protected]> Reply-To: WISPA General List <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:47:30 -0400 >Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service notice? >So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on day >one as far as traffic shaping is concerned. Am I right on my understanding >of this? > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Curtis Maurand >Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > >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" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:04 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> >> 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" <[email protected]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> >>> 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: [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/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---- >> 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/ > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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/ >--- >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
