Tell that to espn..... marlon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Ricker" <[email protected]> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
> 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 > <[email protected]>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" <[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/
