????? On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Marlon K. Schafer <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
