Exactly. And, it works better all around since you deliver an ideal experience (including access to ALL internet applications) to your ideal customers.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Robert West <[email protected]>wrote: > So what I think you're saying, we should restrict the user based on a > predetermined usage limit then kick the throttling in for the entire > connection, not per app. This is okay. Then the users who hit it once in > awhile will never reach the "bandwidth abuse" level and would sail right on > through as happy customers. And all of that sounds perfectly doable and as > reasonable and fair as it can get. > > Bob- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Clint Ricker > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:55 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > The key words in the FCC quote is "users", not applications. > > They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address > "162.21.25.200" because that IP address is generating spam or running up > terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul. > > They are trying to restrict your ability to say "my heaviest users all use > bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent". > > In other words, shape on users, not on user actions....block/restrict the > heaviest users, not the heaviest applications. > > This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect > and is really a better approach in any case. It lets you give the ideal > experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers. And you can > directly target your heaviest users. This is a lot better than potentially > losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get > bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month. > > -Clint Ricker > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > 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/ > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > 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/
